tv Board of Appeals SFGTV March 12, 2021 4:00pm-8:01pm PST
4:00 pm
vice president santacana and commissioner chang, commissioner lazarus and commissioner swig. at the control of the legal clerk and i'm the executive director of the board. we'll be joined by representatives from the city departments presenting before the board this meeting, scott sanchez with the planning department. joseph duffy with san francisco department of building inspection. carla short, san francisco public of department works. the board meeting guidelines requests that you turnoff our silence all phones so they don't
4:01 pm
disturb the proceedings. apelants, permit holders and department respondents are given seven minutes to present and three minutes to rebuttal. members of the public not affiliated with the parties have up to three minutes to address the board and no rebuttal. two minutes if there's a large number of speakers. the parties are given three minutes each with no rebuttal. our legal clerk will give you a verbal warning 30 seconds before time is up. four votes are needed. if you have a question about requesting a rehearing, please e-mail board staff. public access and participation are of paramount importance to the board. to enable participation, sfgov
4:02 pm
will have the ability to receive public comment for each agenda item and providing closed captioning for the meeting. it will be rebroadcast on friday at 4:00 p.m. on channel 26. a link of the livestream is found on our website. public comment can be provided by joining the zoom meeting by computer, go to our website and click on the zoom link or call in by phone. 669-900-6833. and enter the id 858 5644 1212. now, sfgov is broadcasting and streaming the phone number and access instructions across the extreme. to block your phone number when you call in, dial star 67 first.
4:03 pm
listen for the item you want to speak on and star 9. you will have up to three minutes to speak. our legal clerk will provide you with a verbal warning 30 seconds before your time is up. there's a delay between the live proceedings and live streamed and on tv and the internet. it is very important that people reduce or turnoff the volume on tvs or computers otherwise there's interference with the meeting. if any of the participants or attendees need disability assistance, you can make a chat function. it cannot be used for public comment. we will swear in or affirm those who wish to testify. if you intend to testify and
4:04 pm
have the board give your testimony evidencery weight, please raise your right hand. put your speaker on mute. we are moving on to item one which is general public comment. this is an opportunity for anyone who wants to speak on a matter within the board's jurisdiction but not on tonight's calendar. is there any member of the public here for general public comment, please raise your hand. i don't see any hands raised. any callers press star 9 if you want to speak. we will move on to item two. commissioner comments and questions. okay. moving right along.
4:05 pm
item number three, commissioners before you for discussion possible, adoption of the minutes march 3rd 2021 meeting. >> president honda: if anyone has changes or additions or motion to move forward. >> motion to adopt the minutes. >> clerk: public comment? i don't see public comment. so commissioner swig's motion to adopt. (roll call) thank you, the minutes are adopted 5-0. we will move on to item number four. this is special item, discussion and possible action for illegal tree removal. it included the legal authority in the amount of fines, process
4:06 pm
for imposing fines once made aware of the illegal tree removal. urban forestry discussed other legal remedies available. not on september 2nd, 2020, the board voted 5-0 to continue to december 16th, 2020, with the expectation that the board would report back to feasibility of bonds and opposed amendments shared with board supervisors. three, a review of the fine structure in general with the basis for increasing the amounts and four, the legal limitations on imposing punitive fines. the matter was then rescheduled to january 6th and upon a motion by president lazarus, voting 5-0
4:07 pm
to continue the matter to march 10th to allow time for the executive letter on topic of illegal tree cutting. the board would review the letter and consider sending it to the board of supervisors. commissioners, i did work with carla short, deputy director of san francisco public works and we have provided you with a draft letter. i would like to give ms. short an opportunity to address the board if she would like. >> good evening. first i would like to wish you all a happy california arbour week, this week, march 7th through 14th and to thank you for the opportunity to work with your executive director on a letter that you might consider sending to the board of
4:08 pm
supervisors. i think it's clear from the number of cases that have come before you where before the case reached your board, trees were removed illegally, we recognize there's a challenge and so we appreciate the board taking this interest and we know there's some interest from some members of the board of supervisors and hope this might be a way to advance a more robust penalty system to try to deter this type of behavior in the future. i'm available for questions. >> clerk: thank you. i don't see -- we do have a question from president honda. you're muted. >> president honda: hi carla, how are you? after reviewing it and seeing that potentially raising the fines, i thought would be a nice
4:09 pm
caveat, it's kind of unfair if small tree, large tree that potentially in lieu of the fine or including the fine we include that all their permits would be suspended for a period of time. i think that would be much more effective than just a dollar amount. we had a large tree taken out recently and i'm sure they would have no problem paying $10,000 to speed up their project. so having their permits might be more of -- what is your opinion? >> i don't disagree. you know, having the permit be suspended would likely act as a
4:10 pm
deterrent. i do worry about as you noted, i think some cases are not all -- we had a case before you where we find -- we treated it as illegal removal and it was because the stump sprouts had reached where we posted them for removal but in a case like that, i worry if there's affordable housing project and something like that, which was -- i think not a deliberate act. these were stump sprouts. it was easily understandable that they may not have fully understood that a permit was required and to hold up affordable housing --
4:11 pm
>> president honda: the two instances i can recall offhand, we had a project on van ness, where they said all of a sudden they could no longer get the equipment in and took the tree down. we had an affordable housing project i believe off van ness that had the same situation where they decided they would take the tree down knowing it was not permitted. so i think that would change dramatically if they knew their permits would be frozen for x amount of time, they would deal with whatever department, particularly your department in making the correction prior to the illegal removal of the trees. >> yeah, i certainly don't disagree with you. i think -- i'm not sure the appetite will be there for that level of enforcement at the board -- perhaps it will.
4:12 pm
personally i think include that recommendation in the letter if that's the direction there the board would like us to. >> president honda: it's just kind of tough, the 10,000 one fee fits all is kind of difficult to wrap around and that's the concern i have looking at the letter of recommendation that we were going to set forward. >> sure. we did also include a possibility of a penalty four times the value of the tree if it was development related and where we had some larger trees, that would be significantly more than $10,000 in most cases. that was an attempt to try to get a little bit higher penalty when it was clearly development related. >> commissioner lazarus?
4:13 pm
>> commissioner lararus: two comments, one, i think raising this in whatever fashion we do if we go forward and it is well received at city hall will start to send a message out there that people are paying attention. secondly, with respect to your suggestion president honda, what would then unfreeze the rest of the permits. >> president honda: okay. so just looking at it, i think we have legislation in the books for people who do bad things and to answer your question, they go through the process which even if they're not granted the removal, they go through the process prior to the illegal removal and i think by having that in place, they're going think twice about going ahead and taking the tree out and say hey, we'll just pay the penalty.
4:14 pm
>> commissioner lararus: so my question is, if somebody removes the tree and we freeze the permits, then what. how does it get unfrozen. what are we saying they need to do to move forward? >> president honda: they have to go through the process of bureau of urban forest and boa, which i believe is 3-6 months, their project is frozen. >> commissioner lararus: i have to say i have a bit of a difficulty with that. commissioner chang i think you have a question. were you finished commissioner lazarus? >> commissioner chang: i think this board generally agrees that more penalties should be enacted on illegal tree removal but i think the city in general has a lot of competing interests that
4:15 pm
need to be balanced and i agree with ms. short that not all tree removals are created equal. i think it makes sense to have some sort of penalty that is short with the deed and i guess the four times the cost of the tree is dependent on the type of tree. not all trees are created equal. it would be a case by case basis and cover the cost of replacing the tree. i'm just recalling the case downtown, i think that would have a negative impact for the city and project in general for delivering affordable and supportive housing to the city.
4:16 pm
i think it's a little extreme to freeball permits if trees are illegally removed. >> president honda: thank you. sorry, i had to move from the rain. >> clerk: commissioner swig? >> commissioner swig: i would like to send the letter as is, i think the goal of this letter is to catch the attention of the board of supervisors. we will not be determining what the ultimate adjustment to the legislation or to the fines or whatever will be. i think the letter is clear in its intent, which is to raise the punitive bar on those who choose to abuse the city by
4:17 pm
tearing down trees illegally. i have faith that by sending this to the board of supervisors and especially since ms. short has attention there already and some support, that it will be greeted with the message that is being sent and then adjudicated appropriately. that's just my thoughts. >> clerk: if there's public comment on the item, please raise your hand. mr. clip you have three minutes. >> can you hear me? >> clerk: yes. >> thank you. this is an awesome night and i was a little surprised i'm here
4:18 pm
making public comment. i want to encourage the board not to shy away from extremely prohibited measures. until we do that, we're going to keep having the same problems and i personally think i have something to do with the fact that i'm on the agenda and i want to thank the board of appeals for taking this step. i know there's a lot of things this board cannot do because of jurisdiction. i applaud you for not seeing the limitations as the extent of what you may do any way. it's the example of what any city entity can do when they see a problem and especially able to fix them where it needs to be done. a lot of hearings i attend and i feel like city officials say that's not our job. what you're doing tonight commissioners is an example of
4:19 pm
how you as thoughtful caring commissioners can do when you think outside that box and take action to make a meaningful contribution to change. personally i hope it's the first step in a larger more comprehensive change in how we approach san francisco's critical campaign management. >> clerk: thank you mr. clip. mr. noelty. >> good evening. i want to applaud the board of appeals for taking up this matter and i think this is like the third hearing on the letter and taking my comments the last hearing on this and putting it into the letter.
4:20 pm
i also want to say i think this is a start and we'll see where it goes. we don't have control over what the board of supervisors may do but i think this is a good first step and i want to applaud the members of the board of appeals and staff for putting this -- putting their effort into the letter and hopefully board of supervisors will listen and something will be drawn up to please everybody at the table. thank you very much. >> clerk: next caller. >> good evening. i apologize, i would like to speak on a different matter and i was testing the features of this meeting. >> clerk: no problem.
4:21 pm
we will now hear from ms. buller. go ahead. >> i just want to speak in favor of the motion. >> clerk: okay. thank you. is there any other public -- i see one more -- nope. any other public comment on this item? okay. one moment. >> thank you for having this on the agenda this evening -- >> did you want to go on video? >> i'm okay. i'm really pleased you're taking this up, it's a frequent problem, people bring these issues to your board. rather than just have them come up repeatedly and have it be a
4:22 pm
problem, you're being proactive sending it to the legislative body of the city. i think they'll do a good job with your assistance and with ms. short's assistance and other people who know about construction and trees. so thank you for taking this up. >> clerk: thank you. is there any other public comment on this item? please raise your hand or press star 9 if you have called in? i do not see any other public comment. commissioners -- this is submitted to you. we could have a motion to adopt the letter and direct me to send it to the board -- >> president honda: do we have a motion -- commissioner lazarus has her hand up. >> commissioner lararus: i was going to make the motion but that's fine. >> clerk: we have a motion from commissioner swig to adopt the
4:23 pm
letter and direct the executive director to send it to the board of supervisupervisors. on that motion... (roll call). that motion carriers 5-0. thank you. we are moving on to item number 5. this is jurisdiction request subject property at 4840 mission street. letter from vivian padua and ivonne vasquez that the board take site permit over issued on june 10th, 2020. the appeal period ended on june 25th, 2020, and the request was filed on february 22nd, 2021. the permit holder is bridge housing corporation.
4:24 pm
the description is 100% affordable housing, one basement type b-a. 137 residential units and clinic buildings. we'll hear first from the requesters. you have three minutes total. >> good afternoon president honda and commissioners. my parents and i immigrated from the philippines in 1965. my mom bought our home after being divorced and raising three kids on her own as a registered nurse working double shifts. we did not submit the jurisdiction request as a stall tactic as stated in the brief submitted to the board. it felt like a smear job of our characters and who we are. i submitted it to exercise my right to protect our home and
4:25 pm
its foundation. we ask that you grant the request because we did not know how the process worked and had never gone through anything like this in our neighborhood and in 2020 dealing with the covid-19, our health and shelter in place orders. at the previous meetings it was not stated that the project received sb-35 approval and no notifications were required to neighbors. it was only until i received an e-mail response to the planning department that i knew what it meant. last year we didn't know anything about the stages of applications and approvals. we don't know we didn't have to be notified. how could we appeal something without being informed that we could appeal. my main concern is my home and foundation are protected. as ms. white stated in her
4:26 pm
brief, we are a handful of neighbors, we're exercising our rights to protect our homes and foundations against a multi billion dollars real estate company. thank you for allowing me to speak. >> clerk: thank you. we'll hear from bridge housing now. ms. white are you speaking? >> hi everyone. yes, i'll be speaking and steven is here as well this evening. thank you for the opportunity to speak and represent the project this evening. i'm sarah white, a director on the northern california team with bridge housing and project manager for the mission project. this project was granted approval in 2019 under sb-35. the site permit was approved and pulled in 2020, the appeal period has long expired and we
4:27 pm
followed all notification. and even after the approval was received in summer of 2019, we continued doing outreach through the remainder of the year to share project information about the approved project and i have provided some materials dissimilar nated throughout the community. because it was granted approval, under sb-35 and pursuant to california government code, the board of appeals has no authority to deny or modify the projector site permit, doing so would inhibit or preclude the development, prohibited by the state law. we believe the appellant's request must be denied. i wanted to speak about the
4:28 pm
concerns, i understand the concerns about what the impact of the construction could have on their homes. in my view, we're just at the beginning point of having the conversations and there's plenty of time to have them. the appellants have claimed it could undermine their foundations and i have researched and evaluated this and i want to correct that misconception. the nearest structure on the south property line is 25 feet from our foundation etch for a new building. on the north property line it's 10 feet from the nearest structure. given that we're only going three feet below the elevation, there's no plausible argument that it will undermine the foundations of their homes and i have confirmed with design team and structural engineer.
4:29 pm
the -- >> 30 seconds. >> our demo activities entail no soil disturbing activities that would impact any of the foundations or homes along the road. and even though it is not required, as a courtesy, we are doing a pre-and post assessment of structures adjacent to the property line. they're a third party firm. >> that's time. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. president honda has a question. >> president honda: my question is that going forward, i believe we're going to hear more in regards to projects that have sb-35 approval. so can you explain in regards the sb-35 what you're subject to and not to. you gave in your oral, you gave
4:30 pm
some description, so does that mean you're not subject to any of the permitting or process in san francisco? >> steve, do you want to speak to the specifics of that? >> sure. the project is still subject to all objective requirements of the building code, planning code and other codes. what it's not subject to is discretionary actions which would foreclose construction of the project once the planning director determines that the project does qualify for sb-35 approval. and that determination was made in the summer of 2019.
4:31 pm
subsequent to that, other permitting agencies such as dbi, must issue permits that further the construction of the approved project. so that's what happens here. the site permit was issued last summer and even though it is subject to the appeal as board of appeals, the board really doesn't have an ability to make a decision that would prevent the project that was approved, the sb-35 from going forward. >> president honda: thank you. second question. is that generally on large projects where properties are near and as the appellant has said they're concerned about the foundation. are you opposed to putting site markers and having those monitored? >> what we have talked about
4:32 pm
doing is having -- we shared the neighbors concern with our general contractor and they have advised that when we -- >> president honda: that wasn't the question. would you generally on larger projects like this that require -- it's a pretty fairly large building, would you be opposed to putting site markers and having them monitored. >> you mean survey points on the elevations? >> president honda: correct. >> immediate adjacent homes that join the property lines. the appellant vivian padua lives quite a bit farther down. she would not be in the survey point. >> president honda: but you're saying yes, you would be willing to do that? >> as long as we can enter into a licence agreement and we would like them to drop the demo
4:33 pm
appeal request as well -- >> president honda: that's -- she evidently is further down, that would not affect her property but the immediate adjoining properties, are you willing -- >> yeah, we could do the survey point, absolutely. >> clerk: we will now hear from the planning department. >> thank you. the jurisdiction request of a permit for new construction at 4840 mission street, a small portion i believe -- the project was approved under sb-35. this is a state law starting january 1st, 2018, directing local agencies and san francisco is one subject to the requirements to create a
4:34 pm
streamline approval process to give non discretion approval and would require 90 diary view for a project of this size. once the planning department determines it is eligible for review under sb-35, we have to do our review within 90 days. in terms of stream lining it, there's no notice, so that allows us to make that 90 day period and given it is non discretionary, there's no need for notice or hearing before the planning commission and no need for the environmental review. it does meet the requirements, this is the first sb-35 project i believe that has been before the board, even though it's just a jurisdiction request and we have the appeal of the demolition permit coming up i believe at the next hearing. it is a new process, we will have more of these applications
4:35 pm
coming through. we've outlined the standards for the department's review in bulletin number 5 that we can provide for board of appeals for reference and see if some of the housing staff could come to the board and describe what sb-35 is and i defer to your deputy city attorney for legal advice as for what your rights are under sb-35 but we could provide an overview in the planning process if the board would like that. just note that a jurisdiction request is not required to protect the requesters property in this case. that's something that would be taken care of through the normal process to ensure that no permit, whether it is a permit issue under sb-35 or ordinary permit to remodel a house, in
4:36 pm
many cases would have more than three feet excavation. none of those permits can damage neighboring properties. if there is damage, the department is quick to respond and remediate the issues. i don't think a jurisdiction request is necessary to protect the property and i'm available for questions the board may have. >> clerk: president honda. >> president honda: my question is more for the deputy city attorney. as the zone administrator mentioned, this is the first sb-35 that has come before our body and regarding this appeal as well as potential appeals, if we don't -- if we are not able to do anything about it, why is the appeal coming to the body? >> good evening commissioners.
4:37 pm
under the charter, all permits are appealable to the board of appeals. you would be in the same position as the planning department and dbi are in how their review is constrained. you wouldn't be reviewing this under the same standard that would normally apply to a permit under section 26 of the business and tax code but you would review with the compliance of the sb-35 requirements. i would remind you, this is not before you at this point on the actual appeal. this is only on jurisdiction request in which case you are only looking at if the city intentionally caused it to be late in filing the appeal. >> president honda: thank you brad. >> clerk: thank you. does the department of building inspection want to add anything?
4:38 pm
>> what i heard was the project is going to comply with the building code and it will need to comply with the california state code for anything that happens at the property line, it doesn't matter if it's affordable or not. i did hear a lot of good comments about survey monitoring and that type of thing. that's all good. we have a building code sanction, as i said and that will be applied here. and i heard the attorney saying the project does need to comply. in our books, it's a regular construction project that will have to be inspected and probably geotechnical engineers
4:39 pm
involved and any of the excavation close to property line will need to be carefully planned, monitored and inspected and all the above and the survey points are a really good idea. i don't have issues with it. the permit was filed in march 2019. i'm available for any questions. >> clerk: thank you. we will -- no questions, we will move on to public comment. anyone here to provide public comment? okay. we have cindy. one moment. >> i'm here. >> clerk: we can hear you. go ahead.
4:40 pm
welcome. >> okay. hi. cindy heavens, i'm senior project manager with the mayor's office of housing and community development, i have been working on this project since awarded through our department and that's since 2017. for us, this project, there's no grounds for this appeal. the community has been thoroughly notified throughout the project from the initial design and two different designs, one is the current one the project is under. when it was approved for sb-35, the community was notified and got to see the final design and comment on it. the permit was issued in accordance with sb-35. the city has put a lot of effort to receiving critical financing for this project from the state and the financing has construction start deadlines in
4:41 pm
order to ensure affordable housing will be provided, therefore this delay makes the housing crisis worse and is costly. we urge the board of appeals to deny the appeal so we can provide without further delay. thank you. >> clerk: we'll hear from the caller whose number ends in 6187. >> good evening commissioners. i live a couple of miles from this project and would like to speak in opposition to the appeal. i have read the bridge faq and i'm aware of the community input outreach that the project went through a series of community meetings dating back to 2017. in 2019 there were two large community meetings to review the project and according to bridge, the meetings were well attended
4:42 pm
and the project was well received. additionally, a smaller meeting was held in december 2019 with surrounding neighbors and the district supervisor. i just listened to the project sponsor's attorney and i'm somewhat familiar with california senate bill 35, stream lining housing construction in california counties and cities that fail to build enough affordable housing to meet requirements. i feel that on the whole as a matter of urgency, the benefits of constructing this for people who need homes immediately far outweigh the risks of not constructing the building. i ask the commission to think about the impact of sb-35 and the needs of those who may
4:43 pm
qualify for the housing who may not have the privilege to attend the meeting tonight when making your decision. i encourage you to reject this appeal and appreciate that this opportunity to speak and the possibility of this project moving forward with. thank you. >> clerk: now we'll hear from johanna. please go ahead. are you there?
4:44 pm
>> thank you. i am one of the houses between 1991 and 1997. the home was purchased by my parents in 1972 as vivian, my parents came from italy as immigrants. they worked very, very hard, very long hours to afford that house. and i understand what's being said here, i understand that this sb whatever we're calling it gives people the right to do whatever they want at this point but there's a number of homes that are being heavily affected by what is happening. i understand that people are saying we were notified and notified. i went to every single one of the meetings but i can tell you in my mailbox, we did not get every notification or every
4:45 pm
notice or any of that that was discussed here. i can tell you that the opposite side of the street received certain letters that the four houses the most affected did not during this process. the four houses being the most heavily affected, i should say the five and six houses being most heavily affected all came together and had separate meetings as well. none of what has been discussed with us has been taken into consideration for the most part. but we're all homeowners that have been homeowners since the late 60s and early 70s for the most part in those homes. and we're now looking at the fact that our homes could possibly be affected not just by
4:46 pm
what's coming, including things that don't need to be brought up in this meeting because they don't affect it. but the fact that structurally our homes could be affected is pretty insane. i don't have anything written, i'm speaking from the heart. as someone who watched the parents go through cancer, heart surgery, this that and the other and fought to have those homes. fought with previous senators, mayors, for things in that neighborhood, it's a lot of what is being said is just outrageous. we were not all informed. i contended all the meetings at
4:47 pm
balboa -- >> that's time. >> clerk: thank you. we'll hear from theo. go ahead. >> hello. i'm a resident a little less than a mile away from the site. i don't think you should take up the appeal. i attended meetings at the balboa high school and i liked the project as presented. and also, the sb-35 approval is a legal recognition of how dire the need for affordable housing is in this neighborhood and in the city in general.
4:48 pm
this is a good project. it's -- i think it would be a good addition to the neighborhood and good pedestrian connection between mission, that would be very useful right there. i think let it proceed as quickly and cost effectively as possible. >> clerk: thank you. now hear from johanna. did you want to provide public comment? i see you're present in the meeting and previously raiseyour hand. >> she said in chat her audio is out. >> clerk: can she call in?
4:49 pm
if you can call in and then press star 9 once you call in. >> can you hear me? i'm sorry, i'm not aware of what was just said. >> clerk: okay, the last caller was in favor of the project. >> i'm calling to represent myself and my sister at 1993, one house over adjacent to where the walk through is going to be. i'm against it. i think the appeal should be taking place. we were not notified. we received information here and there.
4:50 pm
when we do receive information, it's not factual. we were notified there were going to be condos and now we're hearing it's 100% affordable housing. i'm not against affordable housing but we have been made to feel as homeowners. my mother was born in san francisco and worked for the unified school district in the cafeterias and my father was an immigrant. we understand what it is like to struggle. my father had open heart surgery at 42 and they never got government assistance but managed to pay property taxes and pay their home. we take great pride in our homes and hearing the work is going to be done and the stuff we're hearing is not factual. we're told the walkway is just a thorough fair and then it is saying things about festivals and fairs. we are dealing with a homeless issue and we understand that. we had to put up cameras for safety of our homes. we've had people taking baths in
4:51 pm
our front planter box and urinating and using it as a toilet. on top of that now, we're worried about the structural damage that could take place to our homes. we're just asking the city of san francisco to not just look at when bridge housing says 60% of households reported living in the same city. we have been residents there our entire lives. that home has been ours for 48 years. we just need you to show there's some appreciation for us as homeowners who have paid our taxes and i think that can be accomplished for those coming into the sb-35 as well as us. we need to know there's going to be some sort of security for our homes and that's why i'm in favor of the request. >> clerk: thank you.
4:52 pm
>> i'm calling to strongly support the affordable homes that are going to be built. i am a little disappointed to hear arguments that are tilting into outrate nativism and opposition to the housing and the idea if you moved into san francisco 40 years ago or something that makes you entitled to preserve the city and stop anybody else from moving in. it is pretty clear we're in a housing crisis and homelessness crisis and polling has shown that the overwhelming majority of the public supports building 100% affordable housing and as a result, i hope that the board will focus on in this case, the largely silent majority that i'm speaking for that support this
4:53 pm
project rather than listening to a very small minority of wealthy homeowners who live in the area who are trying to oppose it. it's disappointing to hear stuff like that in a city like this, but at the end of the day, i think the board's duty is to weigh the good and the bad with the project like this. and the fact that we're going to be able to put a roof over people's homes with affordable housing who need it is incredibly important and is something that should be placed above complaints from homeowners who live in the area and are upset to see change. cities change and we need cities to change and we need housing to be built so people can live in our amazing city. thank you. >> clerk: thank you.
4:54 pm
commissioners, this matter is submitted. >> president honda: what's before us is probably one of many projects that are under the umbrella of sb-35. as our deputy city attorney has mentioned as well as the deputy zone administrator, our ability to change this project is very limited. they come with limitations of when you can and cannot build
4:55 pm
and that's the reason why we've had these limitations of how long or how much of a process we can halter. commissioner swig? >> commissioner swig: although i'm sympathetic to the appellant and other commenters, i find that this project passed muster in the proper fashion and there are no grounds to support an appeal at this time. i'll letter other commissioners comment. >> commissioner lararus: i'm prepared to make a motion so i will defer to commissioner chang. >> commissioner chang: thank you. i agree with commissioner swig. i don't think there are grounds
4:56 pm
for the appeal but i want to express empathy for the homeowners. i think just putting this out there, sb-35 is relatively new for san francisco and there is a large body of individuals and folks who are familiar with the legislation and there are a number who aren't. and mr. sanchez, mentioned a lot of resources that are available on the planning department website and i would urge the homeowners to review those materials but i'm wondering if there might be, you know, a public forum to better educate -- i know a lot of this has happened but maybe there's regular public information
4:57 pm
campaigns to better educate the public on this in light of the reality that the projects will continue to move forward. and as commissioner -- president honda mentioned, we would likely potentially seeing more of these requests. again, i don't think there are grounds for the request and i am foreshadowing that i'm supportive of the motion that commissioner lazarus is going to make, but i think it might be helpful to just better educate folks so that everyone can have a better and clearer and shared understanding of what is happening. >> clerk: thank you. commissioner lazarus. >> commissioner lararus: are there other comments? >> president honda: prior to commissioner lazarus making the
4:58 pm
motion, i want to remind the project sponsor they agreed they would put monitoring markers. >> clerk: i want to clarify, we don't have jurisdiction over the permit, we can't impose conditions and separately, we will be hearing the appeal on the demolition permit in a couple of weeks. right now we can't impose conditions on them. we're just deciding -- you're making a decision if the city intentionally caused the requesters to be late in filing the appeal. >> if i could -- >> clerk: there's no further discussion unless allowed by the president. i think we lost president honda.
4:59 pm
i was just here to say -- >> president honda: yeah, i was just reminding the project sponsor what they had mentioned. >> clerk: okay. so do we have a motion then? >> commissioner lararus: i move to deny the request on the basis that the city didn't intentionally cause the requester to be late. >> clerk: on the motion? (roll call)
5:03 pm
>> clerk: we have president honda on the line now. to refresh everyone's memory, we had a motion from commissioner lazarus to deny the request on the basis that the city did not cause the requesters to be late in filing the appeal. vice president santacana voted aye and president honda, it was your -- >> president honda: aye. >> clerk: okay. and commissioner chang? >> commissioner chang: aye. >> clerk: and commissioner swig? >> commissioner swig: aye.
5:04 pm
>> clerk: i have been informed by president honda that he has lost connectivity and won't be able to attend the rest of the meeting. moving on. edmund louie and mary parks appealing issuance on december 9th of a variance decision to legalize the decision of a rear deck and stairs. the demolition of the deck was approved by the planning department in may 2012 but to be larger than previously existed and the stairs were shifted to the northern property line. both the deck and stairs require legalization. there is a required rear yard of 39 feet and deck and stairs are entirely located within the required rear yard.
5:05 pm
5:06 pm
used for the proposed riser. and vice president santacana, did you have an opportunity to view the videos and material for the hearings which took place on january 27th and march 3rd? >> vice president santacana: i did. >> clerk: each party has three minutes and we'll start with the appellant ms. parks.
5:08 pm
>> today we want to discuss the incomplete construction, the cost was too vague. we did have questions about the drawings that we wanted to ask about and sent it to mr. sanchez and we talked with the neighbor about the screen replacement but particulars were not worked out. it puts in place construction that never should have been built, never been inspected and we don't know if it can be rehabilitated or how frequently it will need to be aside from other problems we have talked about.
5:09 pm
we have been concerned since it was constructed. we would like the variant revoked because we don't think it's fair to us, future owners of the neighborhood, we didn't do anything the things they have done and we don't know anybody who has, enlarging the stairs without permit and violation of abatement issued against us. we have never falsified a permit application. we have never demolished a pop-out that needed a variance submitted and we haven't left work incomplete or used the wrong building material. we have learned they use this thing called dense shield, the yellow stuff here and according to the manufacturers, we found out it is not intended for exterior installations, it will deteriorate and it should be removed and not be covered with other material. we have let dpi know about this.
5:10 pm
the cost of moving the staircase, we felt the cost was vague. the construction in 2012 according too what they submitted to the city was around 200,000. how does it relate to that. this is just a screen shot from that. and then of the drawings, we found them inconsistent and they had questions and we let them know about other inconsistencies they included but we still have questions because they're not the same. the different depictions. regarding the wooden screen, they have expressed openness to replace it, but we prefer glass but they haven't shown a specific project yet. >> 30 seconds. >> in review, we would like it to be revoked and it's not -- it doesn't make sense to continue. >> clerk: thank you ms. parks.
5:11 pm
we'll hear from the determination holder now. >> i live here with my husband mark. i'm here tonight and i want to share my screen here. i'm here to update on the progress of discussions. we heard the board's direction to reach a compromise. we have given our best effort and proposed a design solution that we believe meets their goals and your direction. their goals for privacy. we tried to do this by zoom but they insisted that e-mail was the only method we could communicate. we tried to e-mail every single time since january. the access to remove the existing privacy screen and
5:12 pm
replace with translucent material. we have agreed to do that. replace the screen and install one foot riser above it to address their light and privacy concerns. they have asked for glass, we have concerns about the weight, safety and durability of the material but discussed other options widely used in exterior applications and have a range of venders and can meet their concerns of privacy and light. we showed them websites and examples and asked for their input. we only had a week for this. giving them the exact materials and designs is probably not practical. there's a lot of history between the parties here.
5:13 pm
they're likely to be unsatisfied by the riser but it does address the privacy and light concerns. i really hope we can get past this with our neighbors and each continue to enjoy our properties. this is -- i'm really nervous and this is very upsetting. based on our conversations and this depiction here, we have offered up privacy, we extended it, we upgraded to translucent material and agreed to replace the entire item. so we ask that you hold the variants properly issued by the zoning administrator and condition it on the replacement of the existing privacy screen with translucent materials and one foot riser as we have
5:14 pm
proposed to increase privacy and give them the light. we'll happily take your questions. >> clerk: we have a question from commissioner swig. we can't hear you. we still -- here we go. >> commissioner swig: so, your final offer basically -- i don't have the -- what you just showed, it would be the one on the lower right-hand side? >> correct. >> commissioner swig: and translucent material is to be determined and maybe we should ask what might be their suggestion for a material that
5:15 pm
is both legal and appropriate for that space. so the one on the lower right-hand side is the one, correct? >> correct. >> commissioner swig: thank you. >> clerk: we will now hear from the planning department. >> thank you. scott sanchez planning department. this is the third hearing on the variants to legalize the deck and stair structure in the rear yard and it goes back to 2016. through the course of the process, work was done without proper permits and that's why we're in this situation but the property owner has attempted to go through the proper process to legalize seeking this variance, which we do believe was properly issued. through the course of the appeals, the appellants pointed out there was some inaccuracy
5:16 pm
with the plans and the property owner addressed those issues -- i believe completely. those were submitted to the board more than a month ago and yesterday morning i received an e-mail from the appellant there were additional inaccuracies. i asked to see them and i received them a little after 3:00 this afternoon which is not really sufficient time to review but i took a look through the issues and what i noticed was relatively minor. i think overall, the broad strokes of the project are clear and easy to understand. there were some dimension string issues but overall, the issues identified appeared to be correctable. and it could be done through the process. the building permit will give
5:17 pm
them more refined details as a separate document. so i think we are supportive of any alternative that can be proposed and fine with the original proposal. and happy to answer your questions. i think there were two corrections that should be made, one which was pointed out to me yesterday and i'm probably going to run out of time, but if the board would allow me to state what the corrections are. the first is a correction to the second sentence of the first paragraph of the project description which inaccurately represented the permit history. so the sentence should be changed to the demolition and reconstruction of the previously existing deck was performed without benefit of permit. i did provide some of the language to the executive director yesterday and i'm happy to provide it again by e-mail. lastly, we have discussed
5:18 pm
before, including finding that the rear horizontal pop out must be legalized under a separate variance. >> commissioner swig: just confirm,ing, you are comfortable and would support the plan as submitted yesterday in consideration of the minor changes to verbiage. >> yes, minor corrections that could be made. we can work with the variant holder on making any of the changes needed. there's been sufficient time to comment on the plan, it's unfortunate we received comments only hours before the hearing. they said they discussed it with the variance holder and forwarded the e-mail
5:19 pm
communication and it wasn't quite the same comments i received and in the response that the variant holder provided, they said they were willing to work with the appellant but the appellant represented they're not willing to work. i don't quite understand. there's issues between the parties but -- >> commissioner swig: they had their chances certainly. where we are is this set of plans with your recommendations with a few clerical changes and if you are happy with that as
5:20 pm
the building administrator -- you're happy with that? >> yes, if you allow the department, deputy administrator -- >> commissioner swig: i always think of you as the big cheese. >> we will make any needed corrections and final details. >> commissioner swig: thank you. >> clerk: thank you. now we will hear from the department of building inspection. deputy director duffy? >> good evening commissioners. i just don't have much thought apart from i had a couple of e-mails with the appellant regarding the material on the fire wall facing their property and i do agree with them, it does need to be replaced and properly -- we need to get proper materials installed but that will come later when the
5:21 pm
building permit is issued we do have an order of abatement posted as well. we really encourage the process to keep moving forward in order to get a permit issued and this work completed and the abatement cleared and everyone then can move on with their lives. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. commissioner swig? we can't hear you. >> commissioner swig: as the plans put forth and the final offer from the permit holder or the variance holder showed the
5:22 pm
wall, at this point, it doesn't matter whether we designate it as glass, plastic or anything other than translucent. but the material will be determined later on? but do you have -- is that correct? >> yes, the pearl -- the material facing the neighbor's wall will have to be figured out later. >> clerk: which slide do you want? >> commissioner swig: the slide offered with the new plans.
5:23 pm
the lower slide is what they are proposing and proposing it is translucent material. so other than designating that as translucent material, we don't have to go any farther as designating as glass, plastic or anything else, that will be determined later? >> that would be my understanding commissioner swig, yes. the material that you're talking about, that -- it's on top of the required firewall. that's in addition to any building code requirements. the translucent and privacy screen. the firewall i'm talking about wouldn't go that high. there was a photograph that
5:24 pm
showed a yellow material on the rear side of that wall, that is going to have to be addressed. we can do that under the building permit. that is something that can be addressed here. >> commissioner swig: so we don't have to talk about that tonight. and on the translucent material, just allow potential dramatic foreshadowing, is there a preference from dbi of what the material should be, should it be glass, plastic or can you just simply say you would recommend you not use a certain material as a translucent material when they might come back and propose? >> that's a really good question. if it is going to be glass, it would have to be safety glazing in that location. it could be plastic. it's just a privacy screen. it's really not that important. if they wanted to use glass, it
5:25 pm
would have to comply with the california building requirements. it's high up and in that location, we would require it to be safety glazing but that would be spelled out on the drawings and reviewed at later stages. >> commissioner swig: thank you for the input. >> clerk: thank you. is there any public comment on the item? please raise your hand. okay. i don't see any public comment. commissioners, this matter is submitted and vice president santacana you are the acting president. vice president santacana? >> vice president santacana: commissioner lazarus? >> commissioner lararus: i am prepared to make a motion. happy to listen to comment but it would be along the lines of
5:26 pm
what i think our deputy zoning administrator suggested. i'm not totally clear on the wording but i think we need a minor change to the variance. but that's the way i want to go. i want to bring this matter to a close, although i have this lingering feeling it may be back at some point. >> clerk: i could get the language from the deputy zoning administrator, for the purposes of the motion, we can elude to what he said. secondly, he did i believe want to impose the condition that the property owner get a variance for the illegal pop-out.
5:27 pm
that would be the second condition and i'm understanding that you want to adopt revised plans but i'm a little unclear which plans we're going to be adopting. they previously submitted a set of plans dated january 30th, 2021, which did have a one foot riser. i'm assuming those are the plans but the determination holder just showed schematics but i don't think attached with a plan set. >> i was making my comment -- i don't know the reference but my assumption was the latest plans that were received yesterday. commissioner chang?
5:28 pm
>> commissioner chang: thank you. i agree with my -- i wish there was a general term to say all of my commissioners that we want to bring the matter to a close. i think the permit holder, decision holder presented good options. i agree that there's a potential for this matter to be before the board again but it seems like the proposal with the translucent privacy screen, the bottom right image would present the highest chance that it wouldn't come before us again. yes. that one, exactly. remove and replace the entire existing privacy screen. i would urge for that to be incorporated into the final set
5:29 pm
and hopefully address the concerns to the best of our collective ability at this point to bring the matter to a close. >> clerk: can i ask the determination holder then, is the schematic on the lower right-hand side, is that part of the revised plans you submitted or dated january 30th? (please stand by...)
5:31 pm
>> clerk: corrected language, additionally, the owner get a variance for the illegal pop out? >> commissioner lazarus: yes. >> clerk: okay. and on what basis are you making this motion? >> commissioner lazarus: that it will correct potential mistakes. >> clerk: you might also mention that it meets the five findings. >> commissioner lazarus: yes. >> clerk: okay. we have a motion to grant the
5:32 pm
variance on the condition that it be revised to grant the language in the second sentence as well as on the condition that the determination holder submit revised plans, correct the errors, and the schematic that was approved by the commissioners at the hearing this evening, and furthermore, that the property owner get a variance for the legal pop out on the basis that this addresses the appellant's privacy concern to some extent, makes it code compliant, and it meets the five findings under planning code 305-c. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: okay. that motion passes, 4-0, so i will touch base with the determination holder after --
5:33 pm
following this hearing, and we can work out the process. so we are now moving onto item number 7. this is peal 21-007, 501 columbus, l.l.c., versus the planning department. subject property is 507 columbus avenue, appealing the disapproval on february 1, 2021 of, a building permit. permit was for change of use from limited use restaurant to restaurant, no work. permit was cancelled by the planning department because the existing business on-site is a specialty grocer, and is not eligible for a change of use to restaurant per planning code section 780.3 and board of supervisors action 200673/182-20. this is permit 2020/12/22/1551, and we will hear from the
5:34 pm
appellant first. his attorney is here first. mr. pela? >> yes. i think a little background is needed into what this -- what the planning code defines as a restaurant. there is, first of all, a restaurant designation, and then the planning code defines a restaurant and a limited use restaurants. there is no difference between a restaurant and a limited use restaurant other than if you are unfortunate enough to be in a limited use zone for a restaurant, then you are unable to apply for a liquor license type 41 or a full food and liquor type 47. supervisor peskin decided to
5:35 pm
allow our proposed legislation to allow a one-time fix. if you were a limited use restaurant in the special use district, you would be eligible to convert to a full restaurant, which you were ineligible to do before. he exempted everyone from going through conditional use requirements that was eligible for this. businesses could go directly to a.b.c., apply for a beer and wine license, and start generating more income so they could stay afloat during the pandemic. community groups also went to do community outreach, letting them know, hey, you're eligible. you should apply. looking at the permit history, and you'll see in respondent's brief, they're not a limited
5:36 pm
use restaurant. they're actually a specialty grocery store, but they have food that they prepare on-site, and they have special food seating. people go into the grocery store, they buy a little hot plate, sandwich, and they go outside and sit in the shared spaces seating program that they had during the pandemic. going back to 2015, they did apply to become a limited use restaurant, and under the predecessor in ownership, but that required conditional use at the time. they abandoned that because it made no sense whatsoever to go through the really expensive and burdensome process of going through conditional use just to change to something that is ineligible for beer and wine at the time. they had no way to know six years later, they'd be facing a
5:37 pm
pandemic, and want to get a limited use permit. they were a limited use restaurant at the time. i know this says that technically, they're not eligible to qualify for this peskin limited use. we think they're a de facto limited use. all they're trying to do is be eligible so they can have a change in planning code and apply for a.b.c. the first thing they'll do is send a letter to the planning department and say, is this location eligible to host a beer and wine license? we think, given the pandemic, everything that's a small burden for businesses here in town, this would be a real boone for everything in this business, which has been a
5:38 pm
limited use restaurant, and at this time, we're hopeful that under business and tax section 26-a, you'll say they should be eligible for this and they should at least have the opportunity to go to a.b.c. and apply for a beer and wine license so that their patrons can eat their hot plate or sandwich on their shared spaces area and have a glass of beer or wine. thank you. >> clerk: okay. thank you. we will know hear from the planning department. >> thank you. scott sanchez, planning department. so the property is located within the north beach commercial district and the north beach limited use district. this has been properly permitted by the department of public health, by the planning
5:39 pm
department as a specialty grocery with accessory food takeout. this is a distinct land use category under the planning code. it has a separate definition, separate controls from other uses, including the limited restaurant category and the restaurant category. as noted by the appellant, last year, supervisor peskin authored legislation that became ordinance 182-20 that allows limited restaurant conversion in certain circumstances. that is the title of the ordinance, and it is allowed limited restaurants to convert to restaurants. the planning department, in reviewing this permit, looked at the permitting history, noted that it was never authorized as a limited restaurant use. there was an earlier health permit referral where they did initially indicate that. we responded that with a notice of planning department
5:40 pm
requirements that that's not the existing use, and if they needed to do that, they need today go through a process, and certainly, you know, when they were doing that. they didn't know what the future -- no one knew what the future would be, but they chose not to go through that process and operated as a specialty grocery with a specialty food takeout. there's nothing in the planning code that would be a de facto limited restaurant. you're either a restaurant, limited restaurant, specialty grocery, specialty grocery with limited take out. their permit was specialty grocery with limited takeout. the existing legislation is very specific, limited restaurants allowing to convert to restaurant. we appreciate the authority,
5:41 pm
but section 26-a, the business and tax planning code, the authority that the planning commission exerts on permits, but still, this project must be code compliant. it's clear from the record that it does not comply. i don't know if the appel artery has reached out to the district supervisor who sponsored the legislation to see if they would be amenable to amendments that would apply it to other uses such as specialty groceries, but that legislative path is the appropriate path to pursue in this case. there was this ordinance kind of acknowledging the times that we're going through, tried to give a little bit of flexibility. perhaps there's room for more flexibility, but we can't rewrite them. we can't determine this to be something that the board thought it isn't.
5:42 pm
i'm happy to answer any questions. thank you. >> clerk: we have a question from commissioner swig. >> commissioner swig: in effect, this appellant is asking us to drop the line, and we saw an opportunity. >> yes, they're not eligible for this. >> commissioner swig: and then secondly, what you heard me say a million times, should i be worried or should we be worried if we do what the appellant was saying, we would then open up a pandora's box and then have every other specialty restaurant who feels the same as these guys do, and i'm
5:43 pm
sympathetic to them. but other specialty restaurants who feel the same as the appellant does, gee, whiz, if you do it for him, you have got to do it for us, and by abusing the protection that the appellant is using would really make our life difficult. >> yeah. i think in their brief, the appellant had argued that this was maybe invertent error on the supervisor's part in not including specialty groceries, but having known supervisor peskin for sometime, especially on land use matters, i don't know of any inadvertent inadveg
5:44 pm
that you didn't take, and that would change the meaning of 182-20. >> commissioner swig: yes, thank you. that's all. >> thank you. >> clerk: thank you. we are now moving onto public comment. if there's anyone here for public comment, please raise your hand if you called in. okay. we don't have any public comment, so we'll move onto rebuttal. mr. pela? >> yeah. this is limited to the north beach specialty district. there's only two other specialty groceries, and i believe they already have limited use included in their authorized use. this isn't going to be supreme court precedent. this is only going to be one place only. when we actually got the permit
5:45 pm
denied over at building, you know, everyone was very sympathetic and threw their hands up and said there's nothing we can really do here. we had -- we shot ideas back and forth at one another as to how we could try to remedy this situation. i've even had discussions with supervisor peskin's office, and i don't necessarily want to speak on this behalf, but they did voice support for this and say there could potentially be a legislative fix. supervisor peskin did research on this legislation all the way back in april. it didn't get heard until september, and it didn't get signed until november. how much is it going to go back and get a fix on this? planning and d.b.i. said hey, they have to follow the black letter of the law, and they have to do it. is this jumping the lines? sure, but these are unprecedented times, and this
5:46 pm
precedent isn't going to be impacting city lines. it's three restaurants in north beach, if any. we're here, asking you to use your discretion to go against the planning code on this one and only occasion, and, you know, you can take into account the effect of the proposed business or the surrounding community. as you can see by the letters of support, we're only talking about the ability to have a glass of beer or glass of wine outside when you eat a sandwich. and the rest of the neighborhood, all of their establishments are doing this. for what it's worth, this business owner also had to go through all sorts of legislative requests for when his liquor store burned down, 585 columbus. it was a regulatory nightmare
5:47 pm
to get his location temporarily moved and approved over there. that's all. thank you. >> clerk: okay. thank you. we will now hear from the planning department. >> thank you. scott sanchez, planning department. i think we're sympathetic to the arguments raised by the appellant, however, we do have enforce the laws as written.
5:48 pm
this would take place anywhere within the north beach limited use district, which itself has some decent size to it, so i will be concerned still about the potential precedence here, and we see the board of appeals as the supreme court for all planning and land use matters in san francisco, at least the planning matters. thank you. and i'm available for questions. >> clerk: thank you. i just see that inspector duffy is here. do you want to add anything to this item? i'm sorry i didn't ask before. it appears to be a planning department issue. >> thank you. well, i'm fine. i don't have anything to add. >> clerk: okay. thank you. okay.
5:49 pm
so commissioners, this matter is submitted. commissioner swig? i'm sorry. just helping you. >> commissioner swig: this is his first time. it's okay. i still can't make out a proper motion and it's been five years. i do sympathize with the appellant. i do look at it as unprecedented times, but i do look at it as jumping the line. i do look at north beach, even
5:50 pm
though the appellant's view, it's only one restaurant, but we have a broader view of this board to a larger constituency, which is the city, and if something comes up in our future which has to do with another restaurant in our district, a skilled lawyer is going to say well, on march 10, 2021, you made an exception, and i want the same one. i would be in a position not to support the appeal, but i will let somebody else talk about it and make a motion. >> clerk: commissioner
5:51 pm
lazarus? >> commissioner lazarus: so i just wanted to say, the work we do is precedent, and the work we do takes into consideration the planning code. i'm very sympathetic. i understand why this business wants to have access. i believe it's worth it going the legislative route because it's the only one, but it may work out, so i could not support any -- this appeal, and i'm happy to make a motion unless somebody else -- >> vice president santacana: go ahead. >> commissioner lazarus: i would move to deny the appeal on the basis that the properly denied. is that the -- >> clerk: okay. the denial of the permit -- you would uphold the denial of the
5:52 pm
permit as you could say the property is a specialty grocery and is not eligible for change of use under planning code section 780.3? >> commissioner lazarus: exactly. >> clerk: okay. i'm prepared in advance for this. >> commissioner lazarus: oh, now we find out you're not winging it? >> clerk: on that motion -- [roll call] >> commissioner chan: it is with a heavy heart that i must deny this. i agree with commissioner lazarus and commissioner swig that this is a slippery slope, so for that reason, i support the motion. >> clerk: commissioner swig?
5:53 pm
>> commissioner swig: thank you, commissioner chan. i spoke your comments, but unfortunately, i have to vote aye. >> clerk: okay. that motion carries, 4-0, and that appeal is denied. we are now moving onto item number 8-a. 8-a and b shall be heard together. rehearing request for appeal, number 20-072. subject property at 524 and 5030 third street. lady benjamin p.d. cannon, appellant, is requesting a rehearing of appeal number 20-072. the determination holder is
5:54 pm
charles jadallah, property owner, and the determination description is subject lot is improved with a building containing ground floor and basement commercial space and four dwelling units, 5030 third street that fronts on third street, and a detached three-car garage that fronts revere avenue, it also contains a one-story, detached 700 square foot structure, 5024 third street located at its interior corner. subject property is in violation of the planning code for throne compliance with section 171, including the establishment of an unpermitted internet service exchange within the basement and ground floor of 5030 third street, and section 317 for having an unauthorized dwelling unit
5:55 pm
within 5024 third street. the appropriate path moving forward would be to grant the rehearing request and subsequently grant the appeal as part of 8-b. the planning department would thereafter issue the correct documentation. the parties agreed to this course of action. the requester indicated that she is not attending the hearing, however, the property owner wants to testify, and we -- so we from the property owner and then the planning department. >> operator: commissioner swig has a question. >> clerk: yeah? >> commissioner swig: are we also going to hear from somebody as to what happened now that we go through this recommended action? >> clerk: well, i think we should hear -- >> commissioner swig: are we
5:56 pm
going to hear -- are we to anticipate a conditional use hearing? >> clerk: well, we don't hear permits issued pursuant to conditional use, but basically, the -- the planning department is in the best position to explain what they want to do. >> commissioner swig: okay. so we wouldn't hear -- >> clerk: i think we should hear from them. >> commissioner swig: that's what i'm asking. we will hear what will happen next if we take this step from the planning department. >> clerk: correct. >> commissioner swig: okay. that's fine. >> clerk: so we'll hear from the planning department first. >> thank you. scott sanchez, planning department. so unfortunately, after the hearing we had previously on the notice of violation, the violation penalty decision that is when the rehearing request was filed. it was brought to my attention that there was a technical oversight in the decision, and through the enforcement process, the parties had been given incorrect information, stating that the internet service exchange, which we've
5:57 pm
determined to exist on the property cannot be legalized, when in fact there is a path to legal aye due to the conditional use authorization process, which would require owner application and submittal of an application and then a hearing before the planning commission. so we are, with the board's action here, seeking to basically reset the violation on the property. what is changing is we need to reset the process as to how to give them the proper direction as to legalize. whether we are before the board is entirely up to the parties, and whether there is an application to legalize approved. if the application is denied
5:58 pm
then we would be back before the board on potentially a notice of violation. there are a lot of ifs, and actions would be need to -- would need to be taken by parties or other parties, but that's where we are. we regret that this was not discovered sooner. it's not fair to any of the parties, the property owner, or the tenant. we should have identified this early on, but we're grateful to at least at this point in the process to catch it and to go through the appropriate process. as stated at the previous hearing, we'll continue to work with the parties on compliance, and with that, i'm available for questions. >> clerk: okay. commissioner swig? >> commissioner swig: so what you're asking us to do, i'm thinking of the character emily latella on saturday night live, where she's going through a
5:59 pm
diatribe as we've just gone through a hearing, and gotten all excited about something, and then, what's happening here is you're asking us to take an action which would take an eraser, erase what we did, and say never mind. is that kind of what's going to happen? >> you know, i would characterize it not quite as much never mind because tomorrow and next week, we will be issuing new enforcement notices, so it's more of a groundhog day. we're going back to begin the enforcement process. it's the reset button that we're hitting here. >> commissioner swig: groundhog day? it sounds like my life. every day is the same day, sitting at home. any way, i'm sorry for the sidebar. thank you very much for your comment. i understand. >> clerk: okay. thank you. we will now hear from the property owner, mr. jadallah. >> yeah, thank you. i do want to point out that the retail space is not part of the
6:00 pm
lease for this internet service exchange, that the tenant only has the basement, which is a low ceiling basement, and the back storage room, for this internet service. so the retail part, which you mentioned earlier, was part of the application, is not part of the application, and he -- or ben has filed fraudulently without me as the owner. i'm entitled to review any changes to the property. this is a change of use. it doesn't conform -- or i'm sorry. i really need to see an electrical approval process of the electrical requirements for this data center that's going in there. this is not just a telecom connection to a center, this is racks and racks in a
6:01 pm
4500 square foot basement that's going to install this. i need to know what kind of electrical work is done, what kind of construction work is done, and to see exactly what is being done in the basement. he's applied for this permit in the retail space and the basement, but the retail space is not part of the lease, so that is completely separate, and there's a completely separate dispute in the courts on that. i also want to note that the lease expires -- there was a three-year lease, and it expires in may, so there's literally a couple of months left on this. i just want to reiterate that the retail space is not part of the lease. this should be denied or delayed again until these other items are clarified. per the lease that he has, i have to approve any kind of
6:02 pm
changes for something like this. now, for telecom stuff, it's understood that they can go ahead and use whoever they want, that they can install whoever they want, even though that comcast is in the building and at&t is already in the building. this is a big data center. it's a big project. there's a lot more here to it than just an approval of an internet service exchange, so i respectfully request that this be denied or delayed at a minimum. >> clerk: thank you. we will now move onto public comment. is there anyone here to provide public comment, please raise your hand. okay. so i do not see any public comment, so commissioners, this matter's submitted, and just as
6:03 pm
a reminder, this is a rehearing request. if there's new evidence that would warrant that the hearing be reheard, that's what the parties would like. >> right, so the retail space is not part of the request. >> clerk: yes, thank you. if you would please -- >> vice president santacana: commissioner swig, you have your hand raised. you're on mute. >> commissioner swig: i want to ask mr. sanchez what happens if they don't follow through with his recommendation? i want to know -- yes, i want to know what happens if we don't follow through with his
6:04 pm
recommendation? does it become significantly more problematic if we do? is that a more advisable situation for all parties? thirdly, as an option, if we -- if we don't hear this, and we kick the can and move for -- move to hear this item later, let's say in june, does it become a moot point because the lease is up? where -- you know, what is -- what is the best advice here given the hearing that occurred here and that which was already discussed? >> i think the best advice is the direction we're going
6:05 pm
tonight, which is granting the rehearing and overturning the n.o.v. so we can reset. i don't know if there's a misunderstanding on the part of the property owner because the appeal tonight does not relate to any permits. there are no permitted to legalize the internet exchange. it's a conditional use or a permit, which is required. none have been filed, and it's not before the board. what's before the board is the notice of violation which we know contains an error because it doesn't legalize the appropriate path, which is the conditional use authorization. depending on what the board did, it could create real problems because if the board didn't take action on it and continued it, we would have this enforcement process, which is flawed, which has no resolution. everything would hold, and there would be no enforcement.
6:06 pm
>> commissioner swig: right. so if we take the action, which is to uphold the appeal and rehear this, then basically everything we do in the last hearing goes away, correct, and at that time, you're going to reset everything, and there's the potential we can hear this or not hear this in the future, but one certainty is that there's no permit involved here. nothing is going to move forward as a result of our action tonight other than the potential for a rehearing. >> this is purely an enforcement, and we have the executive director has crafted this to the board can deal with this all in one night, as i understand it, so you can grant the rehearing, and then subsequently grant the appeal
6:07 pm
and overturn the n.o.v., which would allow us to reissue, to go through the appropriate process. so you're allowing us -- since we can't rescind it at this point, it's frozen, and if the board takes action, it's unfrozen. technically, you could deny the appeal and just reissue the n.o.v. tomorrow, but that's not what we had discussed with the appellant, and so yeah, i think the thing is what's been discussed with the appellant, which is to grant the rehearing, to grant the appeal, to deny the violation and penalty decision which will allow us to reset, because we can restart enforcement tomorrow. >> commissioner swig: and if we knowingly don't do what you're suggesting, then we are really
6:08 pm
upholding [inaudible] and everything like that because we knowingly upheld something that we knew was -- we knowingly uphold something that was disclosed to us as improper? >> i'm not an important, and i don't play one at the board of appeals, so -- >> commissioner swig: can anyone answer that question? >> clerk: commissioner swig, i think we don't want to uphold a decision that we know has an error in it, so the way to correct it would be to grant the hearing request and grant the appeal. if we did not take action, i think we would need to continue this rehearing request because we told the requesting party that this was the course we were going to take, and he should have an opportunity to be here if that's not what's going to happen. >> commissioner swig: i'm respectfully asking these questions just for the benefit of the property owner, who
6:09 pm
maybe said a lease is about to occur, no action on the building will take place, which he seems to be concerned with. >> clerk: as scott sanchez said, it would just be resetting the process tomorrow, basically, so -- >> commissioner swig: i would move it forward and as acting zoning administrator [inaudible]. >> clerk: okay. so do you want to make a motion? >> commissioner swig: will you help me phrase that motion? >> clerk: okay. so you want to grant the request on the basis that the zoning administrator erred because the n.o.v. did not indicate that there's a potential path to legalizing
6:10 pm
the internet exchange through the natural appeal process? >> commissioner lazarus: may i, don't we just need to say that we're granting the rehearing request on the basis that we have information that may have affected our decision earlier? >> commissioner swig: yeah, that's advisable. >> clerk: yeah, new information that would have exchanged the outcome of the hearing. >> commissioner swig: no, that's good information. thank you, commissioner. >> commissioner lazarus: well, i didn't mean to overrule our executive director. >> clerk: okay. new information, we can use that for the next -- for 8-b, because we will be hearing the appeal. so we have a motion from commissioner swig on the basis that there's new information that would have changed the outcome of the hearing. on that motion -- [roll call]
6:11 pm
>> clerk: so that motion carries, 4-0, so we are now moving onto 8-b, which is the appeal for this case, and i already described, this is lady benjamin cannon versus zoning administrator, 5024 and 5030 third street, appealing the issuance on september 30, 2020, to charles jadallah, of a notice of violation and penalty decision. i already described it. this is complaint 2018-016696, so we will technically be having an appeal hearing on this. the appellant indicated he would not be attending, so we can hear from the planning
6:12 pm
department again. mr. sanchez, did you want to add anything? >> scott sanchez, planning department. i'll just refer to my statement on 8-a? >> clerk: mr. jadallah, did you want to testify further? >> like i said, it's just what i said before, but this internet exchange is for the basement, not for the retail space, so it should be denied because there's no room in there for internet services. >> clerk: okay. thank you. is there any public comment on this item? please raise your hand. i don't see any public comment, and i'm assuming that, mr. sanchez, you do not want to provide any statement for rebuttal? >> no, thank you. >> clerk: and mr. jadallah, you do not want to provide any rebuttal statements? >> no, i'm good.
6:13 pm
thanks. >> clerk: all right. commissioners, this matter is submitted. >> vice president santacana: anyone have a motion? >> commissioner swig: ann, i like your advice. >> commissioner lazarus: so yeah, i'm confused. we want to grant the appeal. >> clerk: and indicate it's on the basis that the zoning administrator erred because there's no path to legalization. >> commissioner lazarus: i'm happy to associate myself with that. >> commissioner swig: i'll say i'm happy to support commissioner lazarus and that
6:14 pm
motion. >> clerk: okay. that language, would you like me to repeat it? okay. so on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: okay. so that motion carries, 4-0, and the appeal is granted, and i do not believe we have any other items. >> commissioner swig: see you in two weeks, correct? >> commissioner lazarus: happy st. patrick's day next wednesday. everybody, don't go wild. >> clerk: vice president santacana, would you like to adjourn the meeting, your presidential duties? >> vice president santacana: sure. the meeting is adjourned. >> commissioner lazarus: excellent.
6:15 pm
6:16 pm
available via phone by calling 415-655-0001. the meeting i.d. is 187-725-3857, then press pound and pound again. when connected, you will hear the meeting discussion but you will be muted and in listening mode only. when your item of interest comes up, dial star, three to be added to the speaker line. best practices are to call from a quiet location, speak slowly and clearly, and turn down your t.v. or radio. alternatively, you may submit public comment to me via e-mail at victor.young@sf.gov.
6:17 pm
that concludes my announcements. >> supervisor peskin: and please call item number one. >> clerk: item one is motion appointing supervisor rafael mandelman, for an indefinite term, to the transbay joint powers authority. >> chair peskin: and supervisor mandelman would be excused, but he isn't clear. we'll open this up for public comment. >> clerk: it appears we have three listeners but no one lined up to speak at this time. >> chair peskin: okay.
6:18 pm
seeing none, public comment is closed, and let me just say that i'm pleased that supervisor mandelman is willing to succeed supervisor haney as a role in that committee's history as the downtown rail makes progress on a modicum of transportation. with that, i'll make a motion to recommend this to the full board with a positive recommendation. mr. clerk, roll call, please. [roll call] >> clerk: the motion passes with supervisor mandelman being absent. >> chair peskin: all right. next item, please. >> clerk: next on the agenda is item number two, motion
6:19 pm
reappointing catherine stefani, term ending january 31, 2023, to the golden gate bridge, highway, and transportation district board of directors. >> chair peskin: is there any comment from members of the public? >> clerk: yes, members of the public, please press star, three to enter the queue or wait until your system line is unmuted. there are four listeners but no one lined up to speak. >> chair peskin: thank you. supervisor stefani is not here nor does she need to be. i would like to make a motion to send this recommendation to
6:20 pm
the full board with a positive recommendation. roll call vote, please. >> clerk: on the motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: the motion passes with supervisor mandelman being absent. >> chair peskin: and mr. clerk, this is very unlike supervisor mandelman. you will attempt to contact him again, correct? >> clerk: i or my staff. >> chair peskin: yes. could you please read the next item. >> clerk: yes. item 4 is a hearing to consider appointing four members, terms ending january 31, 2023, to the golden gate bridge, highway and transportation district, board of directors. >> chair peskin: thank you.
6:21 pm
i want to thank everyone seeking reappointment on the golden gate bridge board, and i'd like to thank the fifth member, mr. francis gleason, for his application. let's start with the names on the agenda. sabrina hernandez? >> thank you. can you hear me? >> chair peskin: we can hear you. >> thank you. i'm here seeking seat one public at-large to be appointed to the golden gate bridge highway and transportation district board of directors. it's been my honor for the last over ten years to sit on this board. it's particularly important work, and i thought i made
6:22 pm
significant contributions on the part of our labor partners who have, under the terms of this pandemic, come under a lot of stress because of the logistics. that's what you do when you sit on the board, is make difficult decisions and make sure everyone is heard. as i've said, i've been on the board for ten-plus years. i currently sit on the public policy and industrial relations committee. i sit on the advisory committee for the [inaudible] and on the committee for the evaluation of executive officer performance, and recently, i was able to work with the president of the board barbara parr to establish a committee on review of disparity and equity on this subject. first, we're looking at how we procure our contracts, and
6:23 pm
second, how we evaluate our employees, and how we select our committee members, and the president has selected me to help run that, so if you have any questions of me, i'm happy to answer them. thank you very much. >> chair peskin: and i just want to apologize to committee members and the public that i am in receipt of a note that supervisor mandelman was going to be 30 to 40 minutes late, so i would like to make a motion, if i can do so, to excuse him from the previous vote, and mr. clerk, if we have to retake that vote in order to set the record straight, i'm happy to rescind the vote later on on item 2 after we disposed with this item, but i apologize, i did have a note to that effect that i overlooked. thank you, miss hernandez. why that, why don't we go onto
6:24 pm
mr. hill? bert? >> can you see me? >> chair peskin: i can hear you, and now i can see you. >> good. that's great. good morning, chair peskin, supervisor chan, and hopefully supervisor mandelman in a few moments. first, i would like to acknowledge my fellow commissioners, hernandez, grosboll, and theriault. these have been very trying times, especially this last year, they have had to make decisions with gravity affecting the lives of our employees and their families. to date, our decisions have minute mined loss of income, supported safety protocols, and allowed operations to continue. we face a challenging future, recognizing the possibility that the 84-year-old revenue
6:25 pm
model and vehicle tolls may not continue to produce sufficient subsidies for public transportation. i serve on various committees. i serve on the transportation committee, government and rules committees, and also on the labor advisory committee and the equity and diversity committee. director hernandez started it recently, and we've had a couple of meetings, and it's really going well. i would lastly like to thank victor. victor young, i've known him for years, and he does just a
6:26 pm
fabulous job. he must work very hard and very long hours, and i hope the supervisors recognize the work that he does, so this is just a little push for him, and the last i want to mention is that we need supervisors on our bridge board. we also have a minority. we're going to be making hard decisions. we really need support on the committees. >> chair peskin: yes. i'm painfully aware of that, mr. hill. i might even have to return. >> well, that would be good. >> chair peskin: not for me. >> i'm honored to serve on the golden gate bridge district, and i'm happy to take any questions. >> chair peskin: thank you, mr. hill. i see no questions. mr. grosboll.
6:27 pm
>> hi. dick grosboll, can you hear me all right? >> chair peskin: yes, we can, dick. >> thank you, it's been my pleasure to serve on the board for quite a while, since 2006, and my primary stage and goal is working with the suicide deterrent system. we originally had a completion date was january of this year, and unfortunately, we were not able to make that, and now, completion because of some issues is not until january 2023. i am chair on the deterrent system, and sabrina and michael have been valuable members of this committee, and bert has
6:28 pm
contributed on that issue. you know, we do have a good staff at the bridge. we're fortunate in that regard, and we've gotten a lot of help from m.t.c. and the government in getting money over of the years, but it's been hard this year in terms of loss of revenue as well as possibly driving over the bridge. it's been hard work, but i would like another couple of years on the board to work on these issues. thank you. >> chair peskin: thank you, mr. grosboll. mr. theriault? >> now i can hear you. okay. new program for me. little hard to get used to. so i want to start as director hill did, in praising my three
6:29 pm
fellow current board members on the bridgeport. director hernandez has been absolutely wonderful. as she said, she helped established the new advisory committee on equity, and we're looking forward to seeing what we can accomplish there at the district in that regard. she manages to share some of the same upsets and passions that i do on the board while being much more polite on it. director hill, i see nothing from bert but devotion to the bike, but he's a little better acquainted with policy matters in that regard and in transportation generally has been an absolutely valuable voice there. director grosboll, having an attorney's background, asks some of the hard questions that i've never thought to ask, and
6:30 pm
i appreciate his leadership on the suicide deterrent advisory committee, as well. my own reasons for being on are, in some reasons, fortunately or unfortunately, are the same as i applied two years ago. i think i bring some particular expertise to that committee with my knowledge of the construction industry, with my knowledge as a retired ironworker of the bridge in general and of bridges, and i think i've made important contributions at flex points in the discussion of that -- of that suicide did he tern system and the contractor difficulties we've had there. the other item that i've brought before the committee last time i was here was the
6:31 pm
bus drivers pension trust. i'm a management trustee on the bus drivers pension trust. that is a pension trust that has seen considerable difficulties. it is, as some of you with knowledge of pension terms would understand, a mature pension. it has a high ratio of retirees to actives that presents particular challenges in contribution to the plan itself and its funding and its administration over the years. we have gradually been working through the issues of the trust. many of the changes that have been achieved have been achieved in large part thanks to my particular identification of them and my particular suggestions with regard to them, and there are others still to be accomplished.
6:32 pm
the third thing that is new in my particular presentation today, in the course of how things work on that board, as supervisor peskin would understand, there's a set of rotation for the offices of the board that is based on two things, on geography and on seniority. it alternates on the presidency and vice presidencies between directors from north of the golden gate and directors from south of the golden gate. currently, i sit as first vice president on the board. in a year under that rotation, i would be president of the board. at that time, i would like to undertake a task that has not been taken in quite sometime
6:33 pm
for the bridge board. currently, as supervisor peskin, again, is aware, the board agenda tends to be staff driven. one way of countering that to some degree is to come up with a new general plan that provides some direction to the staff in providing us agendas, and i'd like to see some direction with that. with that said, supervisors, you have my biographical information before you, you have my information, and i welcome any questions. >> chair peskin: thank you, mr. theriault. i see no questions, so why don't we move onto mr. gleason. mr. gleason, the floor is yours. >> hello, supervisors. are you hearing me? i'm going through a tunnel right now. >> chair peskin: thank you, mr.
6:34 pm
gleason. we hear you. >> i'm going to read something just to introduce myself to the two of you, and maybe you can pass this onto the other supervisor, mandelman, when he shows up. my name is francis gleason, and i live in san francisco. my last job was on the golden gate bridge. hopefully going to be on the board. i live near [inaudible] city boulevard and now how the bridge can affect my neighbors. i know the passengers, the employees, the supervisors. i'm familiar with the other five county board members. i will bring firsthand knowledge of the employees and passengers and residents concerns. because i travel the bridge daily, i will be able to contribute empirical dialogue
6:35 pm
to call bridge board discussions. i'd ask you to please utilize my experience and knowledge by recommending my appointment. the golden gate bridge has many advocates, and i love the bridge, and i am an advocate for those who use the bridge. by appointing me, you will be getting a native of san francisco, a concerned neighbor who will work with all parties for fairness, transparency, and equity within the city of san francisco. and as far as my experience with the board itself, as the other directors have just spoken, no. we do have a very bad, poorly funded pension for the -- >> chair peskin: you're breaking up there, mr. gleason. >> [inaudible] with my efforts, we've actually got the contribution rate up to the right amount. before, it was in the 15s for
6:36 pm
many, many, many years. i've represented my fellow workers when we were all going to get laid off when there was still money from the c.a.r.e.s. aid fund. i'm very glad that nobody was laid off, but initially, there was plans to lay us off. i do agree with the board of directors who have just spoken, however, none of them have [inaudible] employees in this district need to have a little bit more respect. this is a bridge, but this is also a transportation district, and that's going to come back when people get all these vaccines. i got mine. people are getting them, and
6:37 pm
we've got -- 35% of california are getting vaccines. things are going to be popping back faster than we think, and that's why the c.a.r.e.s. funding is there because when it pops back, it's going to pop back as quickly as it fell off. most people that are working from home are anxious to get back in their cars and go and drive to work. they want to see their friends from work, they want to see the things they want to see at work. i have hopes that the transportation industry is going to be more successful than before, but you need planning, you need more information, and you need a boots on the ground guy to see what's happening. and because i drive all of these every day -- i drive the three bridges every day.
6:38 pm
i'm a union member, i'm an amalgamated transportation union member. i support people driving the bus that are getting up early in the morning to do the landscaping and maintenance in san francisco and marin, and i appreciate your support. >> chair peskin: all right. we've heard from the five members for four seats. i see no questions from my colleagues. mr. young? >> clerk: yes. members of the public who wish to contribute public comment, dial 415-655-0001. meeting i.d. 187-725-3857. press pound, and pound again:
6:39 pm
press star, three to enter the queue, and you may begin speaking when the system indicates you've been unmuted. >> chair peskin: okay. somebody needs to unmute. >> good morning. >> chair peskin: good morning. >> good morning, supervisor peskin and supervisor chan. [inaudible] i'm calling in support of sabrina hernandez for seat number one, dick grosboll for seat three, and michael theriault for seat four. their experience will serve the district and the citizens of san francisco over the next two years as they look to come out
6:40 pm
of the crisis. on behalf of ibew number six, i enthusiastically support their appointments. thank you for allowing me to speak. >> chair peskin: thank you, mr. dougherty. next speaker, please. next speaker? >> can you hear me now. >> chair peskin: we can hear you now, mr. pillpel. please proceed. >> good morning. david pillpel. i'm sorry. i missed the presentations earlier. i joined last, but i do know the incumbent directors. i attend and participate in many of the bridge committee and board meetings. i know that the four incumbent directors have worked hard for the district and for the public, and i support their
6:41 pm
reappointment, but i did want to offer a couple of brief comments. i hope that with their reappointment that they would try to deescalate the recent tension on the board and reduce the divide between those perceived as more or less supportive of labor. in my opinion, the environment on the board is not good right now, and hopefully will get better. there are important and difficult issues and decisions before that board related to finances, policy, transportation recovery, labor, a number of issues there, and as i say, that divide amongst board members has become more apparent, and i believe is not helpful for the district or the public, so i hope that that will be high on the minds of the appointees and presumably
6:42 pm
director theriault would become board president next year, and i think he would do a good job, but i believe that we need to bear in mind that they work for the public, the entire public, and that the district needs to be kept whole and sound, and that, again, that dwight should be reduced, and we should try to work together in difficult times. that's all from me right now. thanks very much. >> chair peskin: thank you, mr. pillpel. next speaker, please. >> good morning, chair, and distinguished members of the committee. my name is rudy gonzales, and
6:43 pm
i'm secretary of the construction and trades union council. we call in this morning to weigh-in in support of the incumbents, first and foremost, director sabrina hernandez, who has served with incredible integrity and vision. she has pushed the committee and her colleagues as a whole to develop more committees and find more solutions. i have to say that the times that we find ourselves in are not unique to the district, but the bridge is truly an iconic piece to our bay area, in addition to being an essential part of our infrastructure. the view that bert hill brings
6:44 pm
has been important. i would say the same with dick grosboll. finally, seat four, michael theriault, an ironworker, whose hands served to build this iconic piece of infrastructure. it is important, the last comment talking about ways that we can work together. there is a lot to be desired with the overall composition of this board, but let's be clear. these four seats are intended to represent san francisco, and i think these four directors have done a heck of a job in terms of working together, making sure that san francisco is well represented and working together as much as possible in bringing all of their personal and professional experience. we appreciate the incumbents,
6:45 pm
we appreciate the opportunity to weigh-in, and we appreciate the public comment. thank you. >> chair peskin: thank you, mr. hernandez. are there any other public comments on this item? >> clerk: there may be one additional caller. do we have any additional callers at this time? i believe we do have one additional caller. next speaker, please. >> hello? hello. good morning, supervisors. my name is john bolden. i'm a native san franciscan of the north beach district two community. i would love to say that the past president, sabrina hernandez, has done an excellent job in representing
6:46 pm
san francisco, as well as director theriault, who has mentioned that he will be the next president of the board of directors. i would also like to support my fellow a.t.u. 1575 brother, francis gleason, another native san franciscan of the richmond district. during this time, we've had sometimes just one vote passing on layoffs, so it's important that other supervisors of the san francisco step in. hopefully, supervisor chan can help in and one more supervisor, so we can get a full san francisco representation on the board of
6:47 pm
directors. my own personal reflections, after observing meetings for a few months, director grosboll has been absent a few times over the last few months. he's done a great job, but i think it's important that the a.t.u. transdrivers are the biggest union, have the most members and employees at the district, and we're underrepresented at the board. >> chair peskin: thank you, mr. holden. are there any other members of the public for this item number three?
6:48 pm
>> clerk: i.t., could you please confirm if we have any additional speakers at this time. >> operator: i believe we have one more. operations, can you unmute user nine. >> hello, supervisors. this is kim cavaloni with the san francisco labor company. we proudly support the incumbents, grosboll, hill, hernandez, and theriault for the openings on the golden gate bridge board. they have done an excellent job, and the labor council would ask that you allow us to continue to work with them. they've been great advocates for san francisco, and we respectfully ask that you confirm them for a full recomm.
6:55 pm
>> clerk: on that motion -- [roll call] >> chair peskin: thank you. mr. clerk, please read the next item. >> clerk: item four is an appointment to the public utilities revenue bond oversight committee. there is one applicant. >> chair peskin: thank you, mr. clerk and for applying, mr. kamt. it sounds like you are qualify in terms of you have the qualifications and expertise and experience, certainly, in the field of economics, and with that, mr. kamp, the floor is yours. mr. kamp? >> can you hear me now? >> chair peskin: we can hear you now. >> perfect, thank you.
6:56 pm
chair peskin, supervisor chan. good morning. the bulk of rain in san francisco occurs in just three months. december, january, and february. this three-month window is why a reliable water infrastructure is so important to san francisco, and it's why i'm interested no joining the revenue bond oversight committee: to contribute to the infrastructure of san francisco. my name is lars kamp. i've been a resident of san francisco living in district two. i worked for 12 years for [inaudible] as a founder of a software company and members of the board, i've raised both debt and equity and understand financial markets. my experience includes the
6:57 pm
auditing of annual financial statements and reports. i believe this can be a significant contribution to the arba, and i'd like to thank victor young for guiding me through the application process, and it would be my honor to contribute to san francisco infrastructure. thank you. >> chair peskin: thank you. is there any question from committee member? seeing none, is there any public comment on this item? >> clerk: yes. members of the public who wish to provide public comment on this item should call 415-655-0001. the meeting i.d. is 187-725-3857, then press pound and pound again. if you haven't already done so, press star, three to lineup to speak.
6:58 pm
please wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted and you may provide your comment. operations, can you confirm if we have any public comment? >> operator: i don't believe we -- [inaudible] >> chair peskin: next speaker, please. >> i'm sorry. is this for item five? >> chair peskin: no. >> okay. i'm sorry. >> chair peskin: no worries. you can come in on the next item. are there any speakers for this item number four, the rboc appointment? >> operator: no further speakers in public comment? >> chair peskin: mr. kamp, we look forward to seeing your report, although you're welcome to report on it more than annually. i see no questions from
6:59 pm
supervisor chan, and i'd like to excuse supervisor mandelman from this item. mr. young, roll call, please. >> clerk: on the motion to excuse supervisor mandelman from item number four is approved. [roll call] >> clerk: the motion to excuse supervisor mandelman is approved with supervisor mandelman being excused. >> chair peskin: and then i'd like to make a motion to approve mr. kamp. >> clerk: on the motion to approve mr. kamp -- [roll call] >> clerk: the motion is approved. >> chair peskin: congratulations, mr. kamp.
7:00 pm
next item, please. >> clerk: item 5 is appointments to the sugary drinks distributor tax advisory committee. we have seven seats and 12 applicants. >> chair peskin: thank you. i've read the applications, and this is going to be a difficult selection because everybody is so superlatively fit to serve on this board. why don't we just take them in
7:01 pm
order as they appear on the agenda, and i do have a cheat sheet here as to what was able to attend. i think pretty much everybody or most everybody was able to attend, so why don't we start with vanessa bohm. if you just want to make -- if each of you want to make a brief -- given that there's a lot of folks here, try to keep it to two minutes if you can. miss bohm. and if she is not available, we can move onto sonia banks. >> clerk: i believe that miss banks submitted a request
7:02 pm
withdrawing her application. >> chair peskin: okay. that is correct. i do remember seeing that. so now, we have 11 applicants for seven seats. with that, miss francis -- frances abigail cabrera. >> hello. good morning. time to unmute myself. can you hear me? >> chair peskin: we can hear you and see you. >> okay. thank you. good morning, supervisors. i'd like to share that i'm a proud daughter of filipino immigrants. first and foremost, i am a proud filipina and working deeply within my community and would really like to have the opportunity to represent both
7:03 pm
my personal and professional experience. i have a deep passion for improving health equity, disparities. i attended school in philadelphia where i obtained my master's degree. i was the hospital liaison to the community school funding from philadelphia sugary drinks distributor tax, and as a bay area native and san francisco resident, i'm happy to be back working in the communities that raised me and would love to give back. i'm currently a program manager with the excellence in primary care at the university of san francisco, and i've had the
7:04 pm
pleasure to be a project manager with a program called stop covid. i would really be honored to serve in that capacity. thank you for your time, and i well come any questions. >> chair peskin: thank you so much for your application and your experience. why don't we -- if miss bohm is all with us, although i do know she is confirmed. why don't we go onto dianna cavagnaro, and miss cabrera, you can go ahead and turn your camera off. >> thank you, supervisor peskin. you are close. i am dianna cavagnaro.
7:05 pm
i'm most interested as the parent of an sfusd student, that seat. i have lived in san francisco since 2007, and i have invested a lot into the city both through my career and volunteering, and from 2016 to 2019, i worked with the san francisco chamber of commerce where i was the vice president of investor initiatives and events, and i coordinated over 250 events for the community's largest business advocacy organization? there, i was able to put a lot of people on the stage and contribute to the community here in san francisco? this would be my first foray into something like this, but i am on the board of the marin
7:06 pm
food bank and have been for almost a year. food scarcity is such an important issue for people in the bay area, especially in these unprecedented times? i would like to participate in this committee because i have full personal and professional experience. when i was pregnant with my daughter, i had gestational diabetes, which i'd never had before, and i was confronted with what i put in my body and what that means. i've lost over 75 pounds in the past year, so i think this would be an integral part in deciding how these funds are distributed? i also have worked for various art and nonprofit organizations in san francisco, where i focus on fundraising efforts for
7:07 pm
everything from community engagement and arts education. now i'm the c.o.o. of an events company, and unfortunately due to the pandemic has been furloughed, so now have a greater depth of understanding for the need to look at your funds when it comes to food and food scarcity and diversity. and i thank you for your time and welcome your questions. >> chair peskin: and just for seat seven, which had to be nominated by the parent advisory committee, were you nominated or not? >> no, i didn't know. this is my first time doing this. >> chair peskin: okay. i think there's only one person eligible for that seat as they were the only person
7:08 pm
nominated by the parent advisory committee. i'm making a note that 15 does not apply to you, although i understand why you want that. all right. thank you so much, and if ms. bohm is not here, why don't we go to maureen guerrera. >> clerk: before we go on, i just wanted to let you know that we had an emergency message from miss bohm, and she will not be able to attend today. >> chair peskin: okay. thank you. miss guerrero. >> hi, everybody. i'm applied for seats 1, 2, 3, and 16, and i'm currently a director of programs at ymca. has program has the ability to serve all programs across the community of san francisco.
7:09 pm
i've also, through the family resource center, have been able to design programs for children five and below and their parents. a large part of my work has been focusing on families and reaching their goals around employment and housing, and with that, i saw that health and financial well-being go hand and hand, and as soon as i noticed that, i would start to bring as many resources as i could to those communities to [inaudible] per year, free workshops, health screenings, and resources, just resources in general, and that was all in partnership with ucsf nursing students and walgreens. i also was able to bring healthier tools workshops, and currently with partnership with d.p.h., we're doing covid-19 screenings at our sites. currently, i'm also working on
7:10 pm
a masters in public policy program. a large part of my study has been looking at sugary drinks tax and what's been working in other cities, and trying to find out what components can be duplicated other places and what shouldn't be duplicated. one of the things that i have noticed that this committee has focused on is the food insecurity piece, and one thing i would like to achieve is increasing support with neighborhood markets? they have also been greatly impacted by the covid pandemic, and oakland has a model where they're actually working with markets, making sure that they keep investing in nonperishable foods to, you know, decrease the cycle of food deserts in our communities, so that's one thing that i was just looking at, and yeah, open to any questions. >> chair peskin: thank you, miss guerrero. great presentation.
7:11 pm
really appreciate it. i see no questions for you. why don't we move to maysha bell. >> thank you. >> are you able to see and hear me? >> chair peskin: able to see and hear you. >> great. thank you. i just wanted to say happy women's day to all of my women colleagues. my name is maysha bell, and i am a san francisco native, and i am the mother to four san francisco natives. i have come to live in san francisco about 14 years ago, and i just want to say that my purpose is dedicated to the heart and life in this city.
7:12 pm
i have [inaudible] in san francisco for 14 years. my current and new role is executive director of out of school time program? during this time, i've had the opportunity to become a trainer in evidence based practices that was developed for active schools and out of school program staff to support healthy outcomes for youth and their families? i also help inaugurate our diabetes program at john muir in western addition beacon in 2019. it was so important based on what we know of the impact that diabetes and sugar sweetened beverages have on the african american communities, especially those coming into that 30 to 40 age group for
7:13 pm
african americans, which is really high in the city of san francisco. and also, i was able to support our youth campaign. before the program was initiated, we had a group of young people with the ymca in san francisco that was [inaudible] and so they went through a variety of initiatives and activities just to engage the community in dialogue and to really get people to understand why is this something that should matter and why it is something that we can put our support behind. what i'm most eager to bring to this committee, this body, is my ability to get to the heart of the matter. one thing i know is that what people eat, what they choose to eat, yes, it has a lot to do with access, it has a lot to do with resources, grocery stores in your neighborhood, yes, all those things are a factor, but another component that can be missed at times is really the handing down that comes, the
7:14 pm
cultural aspect. what makes me decide to feed my kids what i feed my kids, and the fact that a lot of habits that i have are things passed down to me of things that i love and trust, and so when we're looking at making changes to this system, we want to make sure that we're giving space and celebrating and acknowledging that context. i think that's the thing that helps people to get on board with whatever recommends and recommendations that we're bringing forth, if we really can find a way to celebrate that experience and not make one party feel challenged or wrong. so that's what i continue to bring to my work, and i see an opportunity to uplift in space. i just want to thank you for your time and giving me the opportunity to speak today and being here, and once again, happy women's day, and see you soon and bye.
7:15 pm
>> chair peskin: thank you, miss bell, for that presentation. our next speaker will be diana lau. miss lau? . >> hello, supervisor peskin. thank you, everyone, for the opportunity to be here. my name is diana lau, and i work at ucsf, also, and my job is i'm the director of asian health institute at ucsf. i've been in this job for many years now, and my basic training is i'm a nurse, and i obtained my ph.d. about ten years ago from ucsf in the
7:16 pm
school of nursing and major in cardiovascular nursing. one of the main pet peeves is i am an immigrant, and i am aware of the difficulties that immigrants have in navigating our complex health care systems, and my specialty is language access, health care access equity, and trying to raise the choice level so that they do not have so much disparities when they need to utilize our health care system. so i also serve as a board member [inaudible] on the side as a volunteer, and impart of the reviewers for the grants for the asian research center for minority aging research.
7:17 pm
we call it rcma. so any way, i am pleased to be able to do that as you hear a lot of good ideas when people present their grant projects to you. i also have served on the san francisco immigrant rights commission. you might not have remembered me, supervisor peskin. >> chair peskin: i do remember you, miss lau. >> i served -- go ahead. >> chair peskin: no, no, i remember. >> okay. i served for eight years and chaired four of it, so i am kind of aware of how the city health system works, but then, i went to [inaudible] school, so i drop off because i was working full time and going to school full time and my hair was falling out and i was
7:18 pm
itching all over the place, and i didn't understand why. but any way, i got through it, and so that's good, and so now, i think i'm ready to come back and serve now, and i would be happy for the opportunity to do so, and thank you so much. if you have any questions, i'll be happy to entertain. >> chair peskin: thank you, miss lau. i see no questions from committee members, so why don't we move onto marna armstead. >> good morning. thank you. can you hear me? >> chair peskin: we can hear you, and we can see you. >> thank you. good morning, supervisor peskin, supervisor chan, and supervisor mandelman in his absence. my name is marna armstead, and i submitted an application to the sugary drinks advisory tax committee. >> chair peskin: miss armstead, i will tell you how to make
7:19 pm
that echo go away. mr. young, what's the trick? >> i think that was someone else's line. >> yes, i believe there was another participant echos. >> thank you. again, i'm going up for the sugary drinks tax committee advisory committee. i'm a founder of a black led and community led nonprofit committed to providing doulas for the community in need.
7:20 pm
we also have partners and provided food, food vouchers, and gift cards, and we really try to provide wraparound services for our clients during the perinatal period. as a black woman, i've struggled through health conditions with the poor conditions marketed to me in san francisco, and for decades i struggled to learn about nutrition with very well awareness of the damage being done to my body and find proper nutrition and adapt it in a way that i could consume, literally consume. so in the past three years, i've learned the tools needed to help me lose over 50 pounds. over the course of that time, i've learned ways to manage my
7:21 pm
health condition and i seek ways to be healthy and have weight reduction and eventually the elimination of sugary drinks from your diet. i'm a san francisco native, a lifelong district ten resident, and i'm committed to my work through sister web, through megablack s.f., to the latina task force, through ucsf black health initiative, through s.f. black, and the s.e.c., the southeast community coalition, and the healthy southeast coalition, and a couple of other things that i will endow because i just like to be in the know.
7:22 pm
my passions are addressing racism as a root cause and addressing health disparities in communities of color. by nature, i'm a facilitator type and a team player. i plan to lend my experience to the efforts to affect the impacts of health disparities on those in my city. i want to continue to make sure that a voice for san francisco's black communities continue to have a seat at the table and to be recognized and flunl in systems that affect our livelihood, and i believe i'm the person to hold that voice. also talk about a couple of the other things i do. i work with all of the hospitals in san francisco. that includes many doctors, nurses, mid we've beens, dietitians, you name it, and i also work with a number of community-based organizations.
7:23 pm
i have a number of natural organic relationships with neighborhood communities, so at this point, i'm going to end my presentation and ask if you have any questions of me. >> chair peskin: miss armstead, i do not have any questions, though dare i say that you may be overqualified for this position, so thank you, and why don't we move onto nicolle elmore, and dr. mendoza, if you could just turn your camera off, we are going to get to you next. thank you.
7:24 pm
>> good morning, supervisors. i want to apologize for my mask and the background, but i am here at collective impact in the western addition, getting some work done for our youth, and so i just want to share a little bit about myself. i am applying for the health equity seat, number three, for the sugary drink distributor tax committee, and so again, my name is nicolle elmore. i'm a first generational college student. i recently started my quest for my doctoral degree at [inaudible] university in
7:25 pm
naturopathic medicine. the -- san francisco's black community supports and acknowledges my efforts and advocacy for my employment. i currently act as the program coordinator for opportunities for all, mayor breed's workforce initiative, san francisco's human rights commission, and i have dedicated to my short life span and life experience to the ethical implementation of health equity for our
7:26 pm
disenfranchised community. i have had the opportunity to work for my community, becoming a voice for voices around mental health and mental health resources. through these mental health disparities that have plagued our community members, we have figured out ways not only how to survive but to thrive. i work as a student liaison community organizer, and we have launched over three policies and wellness centers at the schools, which is a huge accomplishment for the youth, and we are really proud of that? and we have really worked on figuring out how to navigate through the devastating road blocks of health disparities happening in our community? and i would also like to share that as a youth advocate, i have worked with countless community members in all of our districts in san francisco to
7:27 pm
acknowledge the monumental role of lack of access to health pathways as well as naturopathic medicine? and within the sugary tax committee, i seek to work with community members as well as the board to create essential framework to recommend -- not only to create intention but to recommend community based education, nutritional education as well as equitable school nutrition around food securities? i also hold positions with the megablack san francisco coalition task force, the
7:28 pm
japanese community youth council. i am an active member and do a lot of work through collective impact, through community development, and around san francisco, and i know i don't have as much life experience, and i just want to uplift dr. armstead, who went before me because she's such an inspiration because it's my goal to have that catalog and give back to the community. i'm really committed to the drivenness and the essential framework that we need in our community and the black community around food security, nutritional education, and wellness. so thank you all, and now, i will pass it over to you if you have any questions. >> chair peskin: thank you, miss elmore. i see no questions, but sincere appreciation for everything you do in the community and for application to this body.
7:29 pm
i said at the outset, this is not going to be easy because we have 11 superlatively qualified individuals, and the selections are getting tougher by the minute, but with that why don't we go to dr. mendoza >> hi, everyone. can you hear me? sorry for the technical difficulties. [inaudible]. >> great. so my name is rosalia mendoza, a latinx doctor working in the community since 2008. most of the chronic diseases that i'm working with patients to manage include diabetes,
7:30 pm
hypertension, and cardiovascular disease that, as we know, are directly tied to the negative consumption of sugary drinks. i trained as a research fellow and faculty members with the department of family and community medicine with ucsf, providing family care through the family health center and immigrant health clinic. research with the ucsf center for addressing oral health disparities, we focused, and my roles were generally around writing other n.i.h. grants, doing analysis, doing community feedback in the study design as
7:31 pm
well as data recruitment and as well as doing quantitative and qualitative research with our focused groups. our interventions that we focused on in those studies involved the improvement of education to parents and physicians around oral health and primary care, which, in the last ten years, has started to expand thankfully. fluoride dental clinics in san francisco, reducing sugary drink consumption, and trying to include fluoridated water in bottled water in san francisco. my experience includes a long history of representation of
7:32 pm
underrepresented minorities, doing continual education with our ucsf medical residents, and a long-standing relationship with community based organizations. the longest affiliation i have is with clinica martin [inaudible] providing health care to immigrants and day laborers in the mission district [inaudible] which has made it challenging for people not able to navigate some of the traditional health care systems that we have in place. the pandemic has shifted a lot of our efforts.
7:33 pm
all of those aspects have taken a huge highlight and probably a bit [inaudible] so that people can continue to manage their chronic diseases. my aim in applying to this seat is really to kind of bring my expertise in data analysis, chronic disease management as a family physician. community engagement with our existing c.e.o.s and serving
7:34 pm
the low-income and communities of color in our city. it would be an honor to work alongside many of the people that we heard from today, and i'd be happy to take any questions from supervisors or anyone else. >> chair peskin: thank you, dr. men dose a, and thank you for your time in the community and in public health, and i see no questions from members, so why don't we move onto carolyn or caroline fichtenburg for seat four. >> clerk: chair peskin, i'd just like to let you know that we received a message from caroline withdrawing her application for the seat today. >> chair peskin: okay. so with that, that takes us to ten applicants for seven seats, and that takes us to laura
7:35 pm
derosier for seat 15 from the district's parent advisory committee, so please proceed if you're here. and sounds like maybe she is not here. >> clerk: i am double-checking to see if she is logged in. i do not see a log-in at the moment, but it is a long list, so she may not be logged in at the moment.
7:36 pm
>> chair peskin: okay. why don't we go to general public comment on this item. >> clerk: yes. members of the public who wish to provide public comment on this item should call 415-655-0001. the meeting i.d. is 187-725-3857, then press pound and pound again. if you haven't already done so, please dial star, three to lineup to speak. a system prompt will indicate you have raised your hand. please wait for the system to indicate you have been unmuted to begin your comments. i believe we have nine callers and two speakers at the moment. >> chair peskin: okay. first speaker, please. >> good morning, same supervisors, members of the rules committee in san
7:37 pm
francisco. my name is roberto vargas, and a former member of the [inaudible] had the opportunity on behalf of ucsf to convene scientists, public policy makers, and health advocates in the development of the soda tax policy and other policies to help reduce chronic disease disparities and recently served on the s.e.d. tax. i'm calling to support dr. rosalia men dose -- mendoza and frances abigail cabrera. i know both of them to be dedicated to this work and know both of them to be dedicated to staying connected to and
7:38 pm
serving the interest of the communities that they are part of, both latinx and latinax communities that they are involved in. i also wanted to support vanessa bohm, sorry she could not be here today. she is one of the only members that is reapplying for her seat, and i know it is a challenge for all of our members to sustain anything during the pandemic, and i deeply appreciate the fact that vanessa is willing to serve again san francisco in this capacity. she has done an amazing job in her role chairing the community input committee -- subcommittee, and i hope that she is able to continue serving san francisco and the broader community in this role. thank you for your time.
7:39 pm
>> clerk: your time has elapsed. >> chair peskin: next speaker, please. >> good morning, supervisors. my name is rodney chin. i'm the executive director of the [inaudible] ymca in district five, and i'm calling in to support maysha bell, who i've worked with for the last 13 years. she is a resident of d-5, and like she had mentioned earlier, about four or five years ago, she was instrumental in aiding our community at the john muir beacon center in that community [inaudible] sugar diets and how that adversely affects our population. so again, i'm calling to support maysha bell. i think she'll be a wonderful addition to the committee. thank you. >> clerk: i believe we have at least one more caller at this
7:40 pm
time. >> chair peskin: please proceed. >> hi, there. can you hear me? >> chair peskin: we can hear you. >> great. good morning. my name is -- >> clerk: i believe you have your t.v. on in the background or computer. i believe we're having an echo. if you could turnoff your t.v. or radio, it would be appreciated. >> okay. i don't have a t.v. or radio on. it may just be a connection. how about now? >> chair peskin: sounds good. >> okay. as i mentioned i'm [inaudible] parker, the director of the bayview-hunters point ymca. i'm calling in support of maysha bell who is a tremendous leader within our organization, not only our organization but our community. for many years, she has served
7:41 pm
our community and the organization by helping to ensure that youth and families in san francisco who have historically been marginalized or disproportionately impacted have a space and place to gain resources, to gain skills, and have access to opportunities. i believe that maysha's leadership, she is passionate and committed to the work of supporting families in san francisco. she has demonstrated leadership in a way that has really gone beyond what, in most cases, many consider a 9-to-5 in that she goes above and beyond to provide for families. she intimately understands how food beverage impacts not only the health and wellness of youth and families in san francisco but also the cognitive abilities and learning in terms of development and achievement.
7:42 pm
i believe that her experience is well rounded from a professional perspective as well as her personal experience, and i am calling again to support her taking that seat. so i truly thank you for your time and again want to support maysha bell in this opportunity. thank you. >> chair peskin: thank you. are there any other members of the public for this item? >> operator: we have two callers in queue. >> chair peskin: please proceed. >> hi. this is cameron smith, a resident of district one. also work for the [inaudible] as the director of community programs. i was just calling to show my community support for maysha bell. throughout the years that i've been working with her, i've seen her care for the community
7:43 pm
in working to fill the equity gaps for communities of color. i believe she would be perfect for this seat, and just through her passion and her support of the community, she would be a great advocate for the city and for all the people involved, so i'll keep it nice and short, but again, my community support for maysha. thank you. >> chair peskin: thank you, sir. next speaker. >> good morning, supervisors and members of the rules committee. i am [inaudible] gardner, vice president of social services [inaudible] for the ymca of san francisco. i am calling in support of maysha bell. through her professional and
7:44 pm
community volunteer experiences, mrs. bell has the proven ability to work collaboratively through a system lens approach. mrs. bell is deeply rooted in youth and community development. she has not only advanced healthy eating and nutrition collaboratives throughout san francisco but she has also done this nationally on behalf of many different organizations. i am putting my full support behind her application in hopes that she can further advance the work of this commission on behalf of all san franciscans. thank you. >> chair peskin: thank you. are there any other members of the public for this item? >> operator: there are no more callers in queue. >> chair peskin: okay. public comment is closed, and i was remiss in not starting with some comments. if d.p.h. would like to make
7:45 pm
them, from christina get, if she's able, and i hope i pronounced her name correctly. >> good morning, supervisors. i did not actually have any prepared comments. i think you are all well prepared with respect to the work of the sugary drinks tax advisory committee, and the only thing that i would add is i know that dr. jonathan butler is trying to get through and make public comment, but i'm not sure if that's going through. >> chair peskin: i'm happy to reopen public comment. if you have anything else to add, please feel free, and then, we -- i'll make a motion to reopen public comment if the good doctor would try to get back on. >> no, i'd just like to add that it's a great commitment, and we're very grateful to those who have been in these
7:46 pm
seats over three years and very excited to welcome new members. it sounds like there's a good crop of candidates. i'll answer any questions if you have any. >> chair peskin: thank you so much. mr. young, why don't we reopen public comment? >> clerk: operations, have we received any additional calls at this time? if you're on the line, waiting to speak, you do need to press star, three to raise your hand to speak. we can give them a moment. >> operator: a caller just came in. >> clerk: okay. >> good morning to -- can you hear me? >> chair peskin: yes, sir. >> hi. my name is dr. jonathan butler, and i have been able to serve on the soda tax committee since
7:47 pm
the inception of the committee, and my seat was seat number five and am currently has -- have served for the past two years as cochair, and my purpose for calling is to highly recommend vanessa bohm to seat number one. she has been my colleague on the committee since day one, as well. she has been certainly an important vote for the latino, chicana, and indigenous community, but she has been exceptionally beneficial in providing the entire committee and the community with a strong recommendation, a strong supportive community, and i just simply wanted to acknowledge that she would be most important in ensuring that the work of the committee continues, and i wanted to highly recommend her and continue in her seat, seat number one. thank you. >> chair peskin: thank you so much, doctor. are there any other members of
7:48 pm
the public for this item number five? >> operator: no more callers in queue. >> chair peskin: okay. public comment is closed again. let me start by making a motion to excuse vice president supervisor mandelman. on that motion, mr. clerk, can we have a vote. >> clerk: yes. on that motion to excuse vice president mandelman -- [roll call] . >> chair peskin: and then, supervisor chan, would you like to make some comments about ten
7:49 pm
remarkable people wanting to serve in seven seats? supervisor chan? >> commissioner chan: thank you, supervisor peskin. i think for some us wanting to pay attention to this committee's accomplishments the last couple years, me as a mom of a public school student, a second grader in this city, really have noted some of the decisions that this committee has made in terms of funding allocation and support program and messaging really around this town, and to really support, really, in the spirits of what the sugary tax was about, so i really appreciate everyone's work here. i think that it is always great to see new members, you know or applicants that are -- that could be potentially new
7:50 pm
members to a committee, but it's also good toe zoo that there are folks or at least in this case, at least one that is incumbent that has -- that's really, you know, my preference at times is to have a mix of institutional knowledge of what has been done and welcoming new members on board to just mix it up and with fresh perspective. so i, again, this is great to see people willingness to serve. definitely tough decision ahead of us, but i think i have some idea. i think this is really a good mix of people with perspective -- diverse perspective, so i look forward and eager to make our appointments today. thank you, chair peskin. >> chair peskin: thank you, supervisor chan, and let me just start by reminding everybody that while we have
7:51 pm
the seven seats before us today, this is actually a body that consists of 16 members, so there will be more opportunities over time as we see in the seats that are before us today. in the seats of those that have served, six have opened up, so there will be some openings over time, and i encourage folks, all of whom are superlatively qualified, to keep an eye on this body for future vacancies and appointments. with that, i concur with supervisor chan and the doctor who just spoke, and even who, due to an emergency, vanessa bohm, was not able to speak this morning, i think she has
7:52 pm
served with distinction and would like to suggest, with residency waiver, she fill -- continue to fill seat number one and be reappointed. to seat number two, i would suggest maysha bell. to seat number 3, i would suggest marna armstead. to seat number four, frances abigail cabrera, to seat five, [inaudible], and seat 15, laura derosier. supervisor chan, i defer to
7:53 pm
you. >> commissioner chan: chair peskin, i would love for you to repeat your appointments for seats four and five so that i understand -- i think i missed those two names -- or i think i do know those two names, but i just want to make sure i heard it correctly for seats four and five. >> chair peskin: for four, who has to be held by an individual that is employed at a medical institution in san francisco and has experience in the diagnosis of diabetes or other diseases linked to the consumption of sugar sweetened beverages, i was suggesting francis abigail cabrera. and seat five, which has the exact same requirements as seat number four, miss diana lau. >> commissioner chan: got it. i think i understand, which is what i thought i heard. thank you, and i concur, so
7:54 pm
please do the roll call. >> clerk: chair peskin, i missed seat 16, if you do have a recommendation for that. >> chair peskin: i do have a recommendation for that, and that is maureen guerrero. >> clerk: thank you. >> chair peskin: on that motion, mr. clerk, a roll call, please. >> clerk: yes. i'd just like to repeat to make sure i have it correct. >> chair peskin: yes. >> clerk: seat one, we have miss bohm, with a residency requirement waiver. seas two, maysha bell, seat three [inaudible] and seat 16,
7:55 pm
miss guerrero. >> chair peskin: yes, that is correct. >> clerk: on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: the motion passes with supervisor mandelman being excused. >> chair peskin: and that concludes the business before this committee. my apologies to those who we were not able to accommodate, but as i said, please continue to monitor this committee. there will inevitably be opportunities to join and now this committee knows you and wants to appoint you, and with that, we are adjourned.
7:56 pm
>> ♪♪ ♪♪ we are definitely pioneers in airport concession world a world of nationally if not entirely or internationally >> everybody is cop us right now. >> the people that were in charge of the retail this is where that began. >> i didn't think we would have a location at the airport. >> we've set the bar higher with the customer commerce. >> telling me about the operator and how you go about finding them and they get from being in the city to being in the airport. >> so first, we actually find a table and once we know what we want a sit-down we go to the
7:57 pm
neighborhoods in san francisco and other people seminary of the retail let us know about the rain water and are excited to have the local operators in the airport. >> we have to go going through the conceive selective process and they award a lease to the restaurant. >> they are planning on extending. >> we that you could out the china and the length evens and the travel serve and fourth your minds and it's all good. >> how long for a vendor to move through the process. >> i would say it could take 80 up to a year from the time we go out to bid until they actually open a restaurant. >> i don't know what we signed up for but the airport is happy
7:58 pm
to have us here. and, you know, even taking out the track simple things there's a learning curve >> with once we're here they are helpful. >> it's an award-winning program. >> we're prude of your awards we have won 11 awards the latest for the best overall food address beverage program and . >> like the oscars (laughter). >> the professional world. >> tell me about the future food. >> all the sb national leases are xooirz and we're hoping to bring newer concepts out in san francisco and what your passengers want. >> well, i look forward to the future (laughter) air are we look fofofofofofofofo
8:00 pm
>> great, thank you. good afternoon, and welcome to the san francisco planning commission remote hearing for thursday, march 11, 2021. on february 25th, 2020, the mayor declared a local state of emergency related to covid-19. on april 3, 2020, planning commission received authorization from the mayor's office to reconvene remotely through the end of the shelter in place. this will be our 45th remote hearing. remote hearings require everyone's attention and most of all your patience. if you are not speaking, please mute your microphone. to enable public participation, broadcasting and streaming live and we will receive public comment for each itemf
42 Views
IN COLLECTIONS
SFGTV: San Francisco Government Television Television Archive Television Archive News Search ServiceUploaded by TV Archive on